• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are the people nice? Are the people good?

Trump has already started a war. He's pitting Americans against Americans. ( divide and conquer ) ........next....

Don't blame the actions of the Trump haters...the media in particular...on Trump.
 
Don't blame the actions of the Trump haters...the media in particular...on Trump.

I didn't.. I put the blame where it belongs....on Trump himself . try to keep up and focus.......next
 
I didn't..

Oh, but you did.

It started with the media, Hillary helped (deplorables, remember), and those like yourself...the useful idiots...slurped it all down.

Heck, you even like Antifa don't you?

Of course, when I rub your nose in it, you don't like it.
 
Oh, but you did.

It started with the media, Hillary helped (deplorables, remember), and those like yourself...the useful idiots...slurped it all down.

Heck, you even like Antifa don't you?

Of course, when I rub your nose in it, you don't like it.

:failpail: ( again )......next
 
:failpail: ( again )......next

Don't run away. Don't be like the people that David Mamet describes (see my sig). Don't pretend not to know things.

Heck, just recently the media tried their best to create divisions by making **** up about a bunch of teenagers. The media (and their useful idiots) had to retract their nonsense when the facts surfaced. Those like yourself...the useful idiots...STILL believe the **** about the teenagers, though. Those useful idiots are pretending not to know things.
 
Don't run away. Don't be like the people that David Mamet describes (see my sig). Don't pretend not to know things.

Heck, just recently the media tried their best to create divisions by making **** up about a bunch of teenagers. The media (and their useful idiots) had to retract their nonsense when the facts surfaced. Those like yourself...the useful idiots...STILL believe the **** about the teenagers, though. Those useful idiots are pretending not to know things.

This is clear by YOUR very own words. You telling others what 'you' think 'they' know is only making you look idiotic. :)....Do you understand now ?.......next...
 
This is clear by YOUR very own words. You telling others what 'you' think 'they' know is only making you look idiotic. :)....Do you understand now ?.......next...

And yet, you won't deny that it's the media and the Trump haters...along with your desire to pretend you don't know things...that is dividing our country.

Tell me again...who looks idiotic?

LOL!!

But hey...I'll let you off the hook you've put yourself on.

You are dismissed.
 
'Willful Ignorance.' Inside President Trump's Troubled Intelligence Briefings


Donald Trump Rejects Intelligence Briefing Facts | Time


Dereliction of duty is not illegal, but, depending on the gravity of it and reasonably assessed serious consequences, it could be one of the items on a Senate or Congress's ( not sure who would initially write it up) articles of impeachment.

Willful ignorance might seem innocuous if we are talking about policies on whether or not the gov should keep track of the profits of horse breeders) but it could altogether something far more serious if we are talking about ignorance of intelligence briefs if they were about a foreign country developing a super weapon for which we cannot fight back on any viable level unless we act now as the window of safety is closing rapidly.


This article in Time Magazine goes into great detail about how Trump's willful ignorance of intelligence briefs are a serious threat to America's national security.


The sad thing is, there are so many 5 alarms sounding currently, people are getting used to them and are now not thinking that much about it.



And this one is most alarming.



What is happening that those intel officers who contradict the Prez after something he said on TV, he cuts off access. This happened to Kelly, McMaster, and no doubt many others who are no longer there. They lose access, they feel they are not valued and there work has no value to the president, and they leave.

I don't think republicans understand how serious this is to our national security, in an ever shrinking intel officer pool




I understand that the knee jerk reaction by right wingers will be, well, not even to read it or gloss over it, and say, "TDS, jobs are up, this is not important".

That, too, is alarming. It would be like you are standing on the Titanic, and someone from the boiler room comes up and shouts "Hull has been breached, waters coming ini", and you brush your lapel with your fingers, and think, please don't bore me with this, the food is delicious, and the music is lovely."

Well, history's record of such consequences is more than well known.

It's like he doesn't care, he's got his way of thinking and that is that. He doesn't grasp the danger he is to the national security of the United States, for only "he can fix it", and "he knows more than the generals" , and " intel told Bush there were weapons of mass destruction and bush should go to war (therefore they are wrong all the time)

Well, I hate to tell you, Mr. Trump, that line about WND and the intel report that supposedly led to Bush's decision to go to war didn't actually say that, not by any stretch of the imagination. No matter, you wouldn't read it, anyway.



,

Prior presidents have put in a lot more time on national security than the 20% ascribed to Trump. What concerns me about his schedules is that he appears to have no interest in spending time with the NSC, meeting to discuss national security threats & options. That he is unsuited to be president is something I've been saying since the campaign but I never expected him to get elected. He is a real & present danger to our country & a willing tool of the Russians. Whether or not he is in their pay as an active agent is beside the point. We are steadily losing ground on the world stage thanks to Trump & the Russians could not be happier.
 
And yet, you won't deny that it's the media and the Trump haters...along with your desire to pretend you don't know things...that is dividing our country.

Tell me again...who looks idiotic?

LOL!!

But hey...I'll let you off the hook you've put yourself on.

You are dismissed.

Who looks idiotic ? Pick up a mirror and look at the reflection......next...
 
I'm going to bet that you're talking that completely out of context.

So why don't you go and cite me the instance in which he was speaking in that way and then we can continue from there.

There was a protester at a rally. Trump told his acolytes if they beat him up, he'll pay their legal fees. Remember that?
 
What do Times reporters know about handling secret government affairs or how the president must guide this nation through national threats all around us? Most of those young journalism graduates should be happy the liberal schools they graduated from graded on a steep bell curve. They can barely read and write anymore compared to journalists of several decades ago. They are not qualified to second guess the studied decisions the president and his advisers make on our behalf.



Hyperbole.

Moving on...

Ever heard of Bob Woodward? read Bob Woodward's latest book, "FEAR".

But, of course, you'll ignore it.
 
Trump told his supporters to punch the opposition in the face and he would pay their legal bills. The question remains...…...how can you be so wrong and not know it? Lack of brain cells. LMAO!

Seeing as you can't seem to cite the instance of which you're referencing. I'm pretty damn sure that you're taking it out of context and are neglecting to do link to the actual source because it would reveal as much to the entire thread.

But I'm going to go ahead and break it to you. The whole bit came up when it was discovered that left leaning protesters had gotten into one of Trumps rallies and starting causing problems. Threats, throwing objects and even starting fights with his supporters at the rally. So you're willfully trying to frame it as though that Trump was telling his supporters to actively go out and assault protestors. When it was more along the lines of him supporting his people if they got into it with the protestors that were trying to attack them.

The fact that he was telling them to "Hit back" was more then enough to show that it wasn't at all like what you're trying to sell.
 
There was a protester at a rally. Trump told his acolytes if they beat him up, he'll pay their legal fees. Remember that?

Still looking for a citation. Because I've been through this with several posters before and they just keep taking it out of context.
 
Still looking for a citation. Because I've been through this with several posters before and they just keep taking it out of context.

I cited it. Your inability to keep up with current events is not my problem.
 
I cited it. Your inability to keep up with current events is not my problem.

I see no link to either an article, or even an opinion piece. So I'd have to argue that you've cited nothing. Unless you can supply the post number in which you've cited such information.

But if your own affirmation is all that is needed for you to reveal such an event. Then my own affirmation of knowing that this one even has been taken out of context more times than I can count is enough.
 
I see no link to either an article, or even an opinion piece. So I'd have to argue that you've cited nothing. Unless you can supply the post number in which you've cited such information.

But if your own affirmation is all that is needed for you to reveal such an event. Then my own affirmation of knowing that this one even has been taken out of context more times than I can count is enough.

Then what's the context? In what situation is beating someone not violence?
 
Just because the violence is justified doesn't change that it is violence.

The response to Pearl Harbor was totally justifed.....and violent as hell.

We had to fly across the ocean to strike back after pearl harbor.

"hit them back" in this instance, refers to the guy that just punched you in the face.
 
We had to fly across the ocean to strike back after pearl harbor.

"hit them back" in this instance, refers to the guy that just punched you in the face.

And?

You claimed the act of retaliation and self defense wasn't violence. I showed you that that was hardly the case. Its still violence, no matter how justified.
 
And?

You claimed the act of retaliation and self defense wasn't violence. I showed you that that was hardly the case. Its still violence, no matter how justified.

Of course it's acting in a violent manner. However when it's justified in order to protect yourself from further violence, I would normally be more willing to accept it. It still does not change the fact that it was violence acted upon by another, that made self defense necessary in the fist place.
 
Prior presidents have put in a lot more time on national security than the 20% ascribed to Trump. What concerns me about his schedules is that he appears to have no interest in spending time with the NSC, meeting to discuss national security threats & options. That he is unsuited to be president is something I've been saying since the campaign but I never expected him to get elected. He is a real & present danger to our country & a willing tool of the Russians. Whether or not he is in their pay as an active agent is beside the point. We are steadily losing ground on the world stage thanks to Trump & the Russians could not be happier.

I would actually have to see the relevant citations before making a decision on this.
 
Of course it's acting in a violent manner. However when it's justified in order to protect yourself from further violence, I would normally be more willing to accept it. It still does not change the fact that it was violence acted upon by another, that made self defense necessary in the fist place.

And your post would have any relevance if anyone had ever tried to claim the original act wasn't violence.

Newsflash.....nobody has.

You, however, most certainly tried to claim your retaliation wasn't violence. Glad to see that you have come around on that point.
 
And your post would have any relevance if anyone had ever tried to claim the original act wasn't violence.

Newsflash.....nobody has.

You, however, most certainly tried to claim your retaliation wasn't violence. Glad to see that you have come around on that point.

Not at all, I still hold fast that self preservation is what it is.
Though that also stand to show that this originally started with rocket telling eluding that Trump was telling his supporters to attack people and he would pay their legal bills. Which was as far from the truth as anyone could possibly get at that point.

If you are forced to defend yourself, then I would accept that as acting in a violent manner. Though in all generality, I'm defending a persons right to protect themselves. While more and more, it looks as though others are defending the attackers in this instance, or outright ignoring that they even play a part in this equation.

That is a game that I'm not going to play.
 
Back
Top Bottom