Time to get on the TRUMP train

[MumblesBadly]

also the never-trumpers have formed a power cell around mattis, tillerson, and kelly that's basically running the government.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...of-adults.html

Don't let trumptards like mintyfresh or sidecar know how Team Trump is planning to defeat ISIS.

And Mattis said they are “fleshing out” an ISIS strategy, but early reports are that it’s much like the Obama administration’s longterm plan: manage the chaos with the minimum of U.S. troops, but don’t expect to intervene too heavily or change much.

[limitles]

DD
"George W. Bush, for example, wasn't making decisions in order to enrich himself, his friends, or his allies. Bush, for all his faults, honestly felt he was doing the right thing. That's why he often went completely against public sentiment with his decisions. GW Bush and Bill Clinton were opposites in that regard. Clinton was constantly influenced by popularity and public perception, and sometimes made wrong decisions based upon what he thought would make him look good. Bush was influenced too little by public perception, where he sometimes made wrong decisions due to ignoring the will of the people he represented."

Oh Georgey didn't act alone and neither did his father or the many national security operations that do their best to keep the oil flowing for economic and military reasons. Goes both ways. Saudi Arabia still can do no harm, despite their religious beliefs.


"Saudi ways are as alien to Americans as gender equality and sexual freedom in the United States are to many Saudis. Cultural difference have long fueled suspicions on both sides, despite close economic and security ties, said Thomas W. Lippman, author of two books on the kingdom. “At the ideological level, it’s a relationship of mutual revulsion,” he said."

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/world/middleeast/pre-9-11-ties-haunt-saudis-as-new-accusations-surface.html?_r=0

[Dan Druff]

Exactly.

Lots of conspiracy nonsense here which sounds great to Trump/Bush hating left-wingers, but not a lot of fact or substance.

George W. Bush, for example, wasn't making decisions in order to enrich himself, his friends, or his allies. Bush, for all his faults, honestly felt he was doing the right thing. That's why he often went completely against public sentiment with his decisions. GW Bush and Bill Clinton were opposites in that regard. Clinton was constantly influenced by popularity and public perception, and sometimes made wrong decisions based upon what he thought would make him look good. Bush was influenced too little by public perception, where he sometimes made wrong decisions due to ignoring the will of the people he represented.

But back to Muslims and their attacks.

You speak of the '70s and '80s, as if they were attack-free. Do you remember the Pan Am bombing of 1988? What about the 1983 Beirut Embassy bombing? Need I go on?

Western action against Middle Eastern countries can be used as a recruiting tool for low-level terrorists, but it isn't the root cause of terror attacks. Truthfully, they can find a million other reasons to sell a "terrorize the West" ideology to directionless young men in those countries, and don't even need these excuses. It just makes it a bit easier for them.

I could get behind the, "Leave the Middle East alone, and terrorists will leave us alone" concept if it were true, but it directly contradicts the ideology of radical Islam, which involves killing all non-believers. By living a decadent Western lifestyle which flies in the face of the stringent beliefs of radical Islamists, we are already their enemy, especially because we are seen as influencers upon the rest of the world.

Seeing concepts such as gay marriage enjoy increasing mainstream world acceptance is much more infuriating to the radical Islamist than the US dropping bombs on some neighboring country.

These are people who can simply never be satisfied. They will always have a reason to hate us and want us dead. You are kidding yourself if you think these attacks are an act of self-defense or protest to our involvement in affairs in their region. You are ignoring the very important religious angle, which doesn't have root in any rational thought or cause.

9/11 was a result of inaction on our part. We knew Osama bin Laden ran terror training camps in Afghanistan. We knew he had grandiose plans to make a big attack on the US homeland. We knew that he was increasing his attacks against US interests throughout the '90s. Bill Clinton chose to do nothing besides fire a few meaningless rockets at perceived training camp sites -- something bin Laden himself actually laughed at.

They got so used to inaction that al Qaeda and the Taliban supporting them were actually caught off guard by our military response. They actually expected us to bristle about it but ultimately do nothing, as we had for the past 10 years.

Clinton was so concerned about his culpability through inaction that he had his buddy Sandy Berger steal documents related to him in the 9/11 investigation from the National Archives. This isn't a conspiracy. Berger admitted it, but claimed the idea was his own (lol).

The bottom line is that terrorists will always be attacking us, and it will only get worse as cheap technology becomes accessible to the masses. I'm still waiting for the first homemade terror drone attack. Those are coming, trust me.

There are two solutions to dealing with terrorists: Kill them, and don't let them into your country.

There are no rational religions. Just different feel good stories that let people cope. Most people can't deal with the fact that no one is looking out for them and their very finite life in the grand scheme of things is completely meaningless. Compared to Abrahamic religions Santa Claus myth is more realistic regarding raw logistics of the whole operation and motives of it's big man make more sense (sentimentalism or just a pedo that buys silence from the community with a "toys for silence"-scheme).

You don't really get that many more terrorists by bombing neighboring countries unless go out of your way to make it an attack against them as a group. On the other hand i severely doubt that you can find that many terrorist that are not willing to trade gay marriage for say not loosing their own kid to bombing. Some might be willing to get in to a gay marriage just to save their offspring. For me that's silly but i've heard from reputable sources that people are fond of their kids.

US has long track record in breeding it's own domestic terrorists. There are no genes that determine a terrorist. In nature vs nurture scale the nurture seems quite dominant.

Ps. LOTF never mentioned anything about 70's/80's being attack free at any point. Why would they be, that would make no sense? At least for me if i ever say Bush did something that's just shorthand for whatever influence was pulling the strings in that particular issue. Cheney, Rumsfeld, random corporation/lobby etc.

None of this really contradicts what I wrote.

I agree that terrorists aren't genetically predispositioned to be that way. It's all cultural.

Unfortunately, radical Islam has such a stronghold on so many Arabic cultures that terror is considered normal over there. It's seen as a weapon against the evil and decadent West, and in fact there is a stated reward in Heaven for martyrdom.

Recruitment is easy, even without Western involvement in Middle Eastern affairs.

Regarding the gay marriage thing, you're twisting my words. Of course a radical Islamist would hate losing THEIR OWN kid, and that would enrage them more than the thought of gay marriage. However, I was stating that they are angered more by growing acceptance of "sinful" concepts such as gay marriage than they are about seeing a neighboring country get bombed by Western forces.

The bottom line is that it's a waste of time attempting to walk a fine line and avoid pissing off the terror factions of Muslim countries, because they will always find reasons to hate and attack us.

If there's anything we learned from the 9/11 attacks, it's that ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away, but rather it makes things worse.

BTW, I'm not sure how Iraq entered the discussion. That wasn't about terror. It was about Saddam Hussein. I understand the war was somewhat sold to the public as a continuation of the war on terror, but I never believed that. I supported the war at the time because I felt that Hussein was a repeated and growing problem over the past 12 years, but I never believed that was part of the war on terror.

Obviously that's another complex discussion for another time, but I am annoyed that Iraq keeps coming up, since that really has nothing to do with my point.

[Lord of the Fraud]

For those who are up on the Turkey situation and yesterdays Referendum result.

Trump has already made the call to congratulate the world's newest dictator.


Why wouldn't he?

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/193337302066540545

[gimmick]

There are no rational religions. Just different feel good stories that let people cope. Most people can't deal with the fact that no one is looking out for them and their very finite life in the grand scheme of things is completely meaningless. Compared to Abrahamic religions Santa Claus myth is more realistic regarding raw logistics of the whole operation and motives of it's big man make more sense (sentimentalism or just a pedo that buys silence from the community with a "toys for silence"-scheme).

You don't really get that many more terrorists by bombing neighboring countries unless go out of your way to make it an attack against them as a group. On the other hand i severely doubt that you can find that many terrorist that are not willing to trade gay marriage for say not loosing their own kid to bombing. Some might be willing to get in to a gay marriage just to save their offspring. For me that's silly but i've heard from reputable sources that people are fond of their kids.

US has long track record in breeding it's own domestic terrorists. There are no genes that determine a terrorist. In nature vs nurture scale the nurture seems quite dominant.

Ps. LOTF never mentioned anything about 70's/80's being attack free at any point. Why would they be, that would make no sense? At least for me if i ever say Bush did something that's just shorthand for whatever influence was pulling the strings in that particular issue. Cheney, Rumsfeld, random corporation/lobby etc.

None of this really contradicts what I wrote.

I agree that terrorists aren't genetically predispositioned to be that way. It's all cultural.

Unfortunately, radical Islam has such a stronghold on so many Arabic cultures that terror is considered normal over there. It's seen as a weapon against the evil and decadent West, and in fact there is a stated reward in Heaven for martyrdom.

Recruitment is easy, even without Western involvement in Middle Eastern affairs.

Regarding the gay marriage thing, you're twisting my words. Of course a radical Islamist would hate losing THEIR OWN kid, and that would enrage them more than the thought of gay marriage. However, I was stating that they are angered more by growing acceptance of "sinful" concepts such as gay marriage than they are about seeing a neighboring country get bombed by Western forces.

The bottom line is that it's a waste of time attempting to walk a fine line and avoid pissing off the terror factions of Muslim countries, because they will always find reasons to hate and attack us.

If there's anything we learned from the 9/11 attacks, it's that ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away, but rather it makes things worse.

BTW, I'm not sure how Iraq entered the discussion. That wasn't about terror. It was about Saddam Hussein. I understand the war was somewhat sold to the public as a continuation of the war on terror, but I never believed that. I supported the war at the time because I felt that Hussein was a repeated and growing problem over the past 12 years, but I never believed that was part of the war on terror.

Obviously that's another complex discussion for another time, but I am annoyed that Iraq keeps coming up, since that really has nothing to do with my point.

Yea i wouldn't say it's cultural when i've given you in various threads examples from half dozen other cultures that have at times resorted to terrorism.

Basically i see your point as saying it's ok to poke the bear because handful of bears are so deranged that they attack people without provocation. So let's focus on the exemption from a rule, because that makes perfect sense. Let's not try to do anything about the 9999/10000 where we know the reason (hunger, protecting offspring, wounded ect.) and try to keep people alive.

I assume this makes me a bear apologist. I always grew up assuming that explaining something is completely separate from excusing something, but maybe that's cultural.

Iraq is just an example for what happens when you poke the bear.

If this is all just cultural then exactly what caused a huge increase in the number of terrorists in the middle east in 15 years. Did they just add the 72 virgins clause in Quran?

Oh and it's nice that we've established a firm line in the assumed beliefs of radicalized Muslims regarding gay marriage and bombings. I wasn't really going for that. It was more of an example reminding that by far the highest numbers of terrorists come from countries that are bombed, not so much being next to a country that is bombed. Osama bin Laden and his merry 9/11 bunch were really exceptions here. Coming from wealth and that one Sharia law touting country that's totally not a problem. Most of Taliban, ISIL and Al-Qaeda definitely come from countries that were bombed.

[limitles]

There are no rational religions. Just different feel good stories that let people cope. Most people can't deal with the fact that no one is looking out for them and their very finite life in the grand scheme of things is completely meaningless. Compared to Abrahamic religions Santa Claus myth is more realistic regarding raw logistics of the whole operation and motives of it's big man make more sense (sentimentalism or just a pedo that buys silence from the community with a "toys for silence"-scheme).

You don't really get that many more terrorists by bombing neighboring countries unless go out of your way to make it an attack against them as a group. On the other hand i severely doubt that you can find that many terrorist that are not willing to trade gay marriage for say not loosing their own kid to bombing. Some might be willing to get in to a gay marriage just to save their offspring. For me that's silly but i've heard from reputable sources that people are fond of their kids.

US has long track record in breeding it's own domestic terrorists. There are no genes that determine a terrorist. In nature vs nurture scale the nurture seems quite dominant.

Ps. LOTF never mentioned anything about 70's/80's being attack free at any point. Why would they be, that would make no sense? At least for me if i ever say Bush did something that's just shorthand for whatever influence was pulling the strings in that particular issue. Cheney, Rumsfeld, random corporation/lobby etc.

None of this really contradicts what I wrote.

I agree that terrorists aren't genetically predispositioned to be that way. It's all cultural.

Unfortunately, radical Islam has such a stronghold on so many Arabic cultures that terror is considered normal over there. It's seen as a weapon against the evil and decadent West, and in fact there is a stated reward in Heaven for martyrdom.

Recruitment is easy, even without Western involvement in Middle Eastern affairs.

Regarding the gay marriage thing, you're twisting my words. Of course a radical Islamist would hate losing THEIR OWN kid, and that would enrage them more than the thought of gay marriage. However, I was stating that they are angered more by growing acceptance of "sinful" concepts such as gay marriage than they are about seeing a neighboring country get bombed by Western forces.

The bottom line is that it's a waste of time attempting to walk a fine line and avoid pissing off the terror factions of Muslim countries, because they will always find reasons to hate and attack us.

If there's anything we learned from the 9/11 attacks, it's that ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away, but rather it makes things worse.

BTW, I'm not sure how Iraq entered the discussion. That wasn't about terror. It was about Saddam Hussein. I understand the war was somewhat sold to the public as a continuation of the war on terror, but I never believed that. I supported the war at the time because I felt that Hussein was a repeated and growing problem over the past 12 years, but I never believed that was part of the war on terror.

Obviously that's another complex discussion for another time, but I am annoyed that Iraq keeps coming up, since that really has nothing to do with my point.

When was the situation different in your lifetime? Vietnam was short on Muslim terrorists and oil but something made it vital to America's "safety"? When the bogeyman won, how much difference did it make to the dead and their families?
Make it like it was, or great again, will be no different/easier fighting in open desert and you'll still be in the amazing past.

[FPS_Russia]

This chick is usually weeks ahead of the MSM on the latest Trump Russia news.
Not conspiraporn, she's credible.
https://patribotics.blog/
They got em all on tape huh, what a mess.

[lewfather]

were like 4 months in and were already talking nuclear war?

awesome.

[FPS_Russia]

Keith with the same info as the above blog.

Let's assume Trump and maybe his closest family members have been caught red handed.
How far would Trump go to divert attn away from this scandal? Scary...

[thesidedish]

WE'RE WINNING SO MUCH PPL ARE BACK ON TAX RETURNS AGAIN

KEEP LOSING UR ASS TARDY TARDS, Lord of the trash will be on the #THETRUMPTRAIN before we know it

[MumblesBadly]

Keith with the same info as the above blog.

Let's assume Trump and maybe his closest family members have been caught red handed.
How far would Trump go to divert attn away from this scandal? Scary...

TBF, I doubt the GOP-controlled Congress would impeach Trump even if there was solid evidence of pre-election cooperation with Russia operatives. In the Watergate scandal, the GOP was vigorously circling the wagons for Nixon until the tape came out on which Nixon could be heard plotting with his White House staff about using the CIA to get the FBI to back off on investigating the break-in. Remember, even if the House votes to impeach, the Senate would have to have 2/3rds majority to find Trump guilty. The chances of that are near zero unless rock solid evidence of Trump using government agencies to subvert justice *as president* surfaces.

[FPS_Russia]

Keith with the same info as the above blog.

Let's assume Trump and maybe his closest family members have been caught red handed.
How far would Trump go to divert attn away from this scandal? Scary...

TBF, I doubt the GOP-controlled Congress would impeach Trump even if there was solid evidence of pre-election cooperation with Russia operatives. In the Watergate scandal, the GOP was vigorously circling the wagons for Nixon until the tape came out on which Nixon could be heard plotting with his White House staff about using the CIA to get the FBI to back off on investigating the break-in. Remember, even if the House votes to impeach, the Senate would have to have 2/3rds majority to find Trump guilty. The chances of that are near zero unless rock solid evidence of Trump using government agencies to subvert justice *as president* surfaces.

http://www.palmerreport.com/politics...-scandal/2333/
Intel community chatter: Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell caught red handed in Trump-Russia scandal

Over the weekend, credible leaks from the U.S. intelligence community have sprung afoot, ranging from Donald Trump and three advisers being caught on tape admitting to treason with Russia (link) to Rudy Giuliani trying to cut a deal against Trump (link). Now comes chatter that GOP leaders Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell may have been nailed as well.

The claims about the GOP House and Senate leaders are coming from two different political pundits whose sources have a history of being proven correct. One is former Bill Clinton White House staffer Claude Taylor, who stated today that he’s “Starting to hear chatter that there are intercepts w/ Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell discussing funneling illegal Russian money into campaign” (link). He went on to stress that “This really is ‘chatter’ as opposed to sourced,” making clear that this is not confirmed on his end.

But then another pundit whose sources have also proven reliable, ImpeachAgentOrangsky, added that “According to anonymous intel sources Ryan & McConnell are on tape talking about laundering Russian money thru Super Pacs” (link). So take this one for what you think it’s worth. But two things are important to keep in mind here. The first is that these kinds of leaks from proven sources have tended to later be proven correct. For instance the prior leaks about Trump-Russia figures ranging from Michael Flynn to Paul Manafort to Carter Page have generally been verified further down the line. So these kinds of credible Trump-Russia leaks are worth reporting and considering.

The second thing to keep in mind is that as a practical matter, with the Russian Ambassador and a Russia GRU agent already confirmed to have attended the Republican National Convention and met with several top Trump staffers in the name of changing the Republican Party platform, it’s difficult to imagine GOP leaders in attendance like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell not having been aware of what was going on at the time. And we know that Carter Page was under FISA surveillance at the time of the convention, meaning anyone involved may have been picked up on that surveillance. Contribute to Palmer Report

To good to be true? After the GOP sold us out to the ISP's, this would be exactly what they deserve. Sadly even if all this was true and the tapes were released the GOP's behemoth propaganda arm would convince their base of useful idiots it's Obama's fault or whatever.

[Mintjewlips]

Lol at posting trumps old tweets.

I could easily post quotes that show just how delusional some of you are, but i get it.....


Anyways.....


The possibility of the sun rising in japan once again is 100 times more scary to me then some midget megalomaniac who rules an empire of dirt.

The United States of America hasn't had a real rival nation state since world war 2. I mean a real rival nation state, like one that could match our ability to wage war, like Nazi Germany or the Japanese Empire.

The level of ingenuity coming out of Nazi Germany was so efficient that the US pretty much copied a large majority of their methodology, from the way they ran their bureaucracy to their research methodology, just research project paperclip.

Another nation state that rivaled Nazi Germany was Japan, i actually think pre WW2 Japanese were worse then the Nazis imo, which is why the thought of Japan re arming and voting to pretty much scrap the whole 1% cap of GDP spent on their military just scares the fuck out of me. And worse, the thought of Japan pretty much having the ability to literally build a nuke over night, mainly because they already have all the parts, all they need to do is to assemble the bombs if they're not already secretly built(which i think they are imo).

Teaming up with Japan militarily to take down a cult of starved gooks will only come back to bite us in the ass, bad move by the neocons, i say neocons because trump just seems to have given into the neo con neo libtard agenda, fucking sad.

[Mintjewlips]

By the way, what good is a nuclear missile if it never reaches the destiny you want it to reach, instead it ends up in the middle of the ocean???

[FPS_Russia]

Carlin 1988
Trump's admin isn't some anomaly, it's standard. Trump has a long way to go to catch up with the Reagan.
Sounds like he's describing Trump's admin. from 1988.

Never vote Republican, ever!

[BetCheckBet]

The north Korean standoff has serious implications on the esports community. Can somebody please confirm that Sirius made it out of south korea safely?

[sonatine]

Hey remember when Trump fired every competent US attorney from the DOJ some months back?

They havent hired a single one to replace them.


Weird right?

[Tellafriend]

Hey remember when Trump fired every competent US attorney from the DOJ some months back?

They havent hired a single one to replace them.


Weird right?

They need to be confirmed and congress is on vacation.

[MumblesBadly]

[DirtyB]

Hey remember when Trump fired every competent US attorney from the DOJ some months back?

They havent hired a single one to replace them.


Weird right?

They need to be confirmed and congress is on vacation.

None of them have been nominated. The Justice Department is still trying to fill its #2 and #3 positions, along with Solicitor General- who will then start the process of selecting US Attorneys. The Obama Administration had filled all of those senior jobs by March 2009.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.a3894eb35835