Just admit it. You're as clueless as a middle school drama queen.BrooksBearLives said:curtpenn said:Thanks for the comic relief, loser. ROTFL.BrooksBearLives said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:But you specifically asserted that "Obama didn't put kids in cages". You were wrong about that, and about Obama undoing gains against ISIS.BrooksBearLives said:curtpenn said:"But for Biden to say that Obama's administration did not put people in cages is inaccurate. Obama and Biden in 2014 saw an influx of children arriving at the border without a parent or guardian, and reporting from 2014 by the Arizona Republic referred to a chain-link enclosure holding children as "cages." A former Homeland Security secretary under the Obama administration in interviews has acknowledged that some have described as "cages" the enclosures used during Obama's tenure.BrooksBearLives said:Sam Lowry said:True, improving on Obama didn't take much.BrooksBearLives said:Aliceinbubbleland said:I didn't vote for him and do not like his politics but it beats the hell out of those Democrats running so far. Watching the Congressional hearings with Zuckerberg yesterday turned my stomach. Congressional hearings are becoming day time soap operas for clowns. Al Green should have his ass kicked in the next elections but he will probably be returned to the astonishment of intelligent voters.BrooksBearLives said:
He's not playing 3-dimensional chess.
He's a simple rich kid who has failed up his entire life.
He's going to ruin the party on his way out.
Yeah. How hard is it to improve on a guy who puts kids in cages and has recharged ISIS?
So it was so bad you doubled down on it?
Obama didn't put kids in cages and he didn't undo hard-earned gains against ISIS.
Can't help but notice your responses are getting less substantive.
There's a debate on whether a chain-link enclosure is a "cage" and whether applying that term to those structures is subjective. But the term certainly was used in 2014 to describe enclosures used by Obama' administration."
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/sep/13/joe-biden/fact-checking-biden-use-cages-during-obama-adminis/
"President George W. Bush, at the end of his Presidency, warned America of the risk of withdrawing precipitously from Iraq. Nevertheless, the United States military forces, under the direction of then President Obama, quickly started a withdrawal from Iraq that was completed in 2011. Not coincidentally, by April of 2013, the Islamic State of Iraq had united with al-Nusra Front to form Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
At that time, ISIS was confined to the immediate area of Iraq and Syria. President Obama famously referred to ISIS nine months later in January of 2014 as the "JV team." Just over a year later, however, according to ABC News, on "the second anniversary of the declaration of its Islamic 'caliphate,' or kingdom . . . the group has gone from obscurity . . . to the world's most brutal terrorist network, not only responsible for thousands of deaths in the Middle East but also linked to hundreds more in dozens of terrorist plots in the West."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasdelbeccaro/2017/02/16/are-the-democrats-helping-isis-recruit/#2cdf8c0926ff
Personally, I don't get too wrapped up around these peripheral (to me) issue, but since you do... You're welcome.
It was nowhere NEAR the scale, and the Flores agreement was followed. It was nowhere NEAR the same. This administration's expressed policy was to be cruel.
With respect, no. Obama didn't. Trump WANTED these kids in cages. Interviews with John Kelly show that. Cruelty WAS the point. Under Obama, the spaces were used only when needed (when the kids were believed to be in danger -and even then, it was for limited amounts of time).
There is a GIANT difference between the treatments. And to treat them as the same is patently false and misleading.
It's kind of nice to be reminded what kind of "pro-life" Curt is, though. It'll help when he calls me a murderer later when he's losing another argument.
Just admit it. You're not pro-life. You're pro SOME lives.
So... at what point do Republicans realize Trump is bad at this?
107,080 Views |
1438 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by Florda_mike
Just checking in to see if anyone has changed their mind (either side) in this thread yet.
Nope.
I'll check again later.
Nope.
I'll check again later.
ATL Bear said:Trash? Not only are you an emotional child in these threads and responses, your positions are formed not by independent thought, but your disdain for Trump, and a steady diet of US media bilge. I mean what the hell does Trump's hotel and whatever Father issues you're assigning to him have to do with US Near East policy? I mean, at least stay on task.BrooksBearLives said:ATL Bear said:Turkey is an ally, just FYI. Not sure how you sell out an ally to an ally. You know who's hosting over 3 million refugees from Syria? An ally. You know who likes to attack our ally? Our ally. It's a wicked web.BrooksBearLives said:
This isn't an episode of leave it to beaver where Wally learns a lesson about doing his chores.
Our President just sold out our allies and now he's talking about how Turkey needs to "clean things up." People our nation made promises to are dying.
Antics.
Get out of here.
BTW, you know who's setting up shop in Raqqa now, which was the stronghold of ISIS until Syrian Army and Kurds with US assistance drove them out? The Syrian Army. You know who likes to fight ISIS as much as us? The Syrian Army. The thing that's sticking in most people's craw at State and the Pentagon is that this was a retreat from regime change with Assad. A welcome retreat in my book. Let the crazies do the dirty work. We can monitor from Iraq and Turkey if something is needed with ISIS.
You don't know how you sell out an ally to another ally?
Really? Ever get stuck between two family members? It is absolutely possible to **** over one ally for another.
And that's what we did. You're being a little dualistic.
This take is just trash and COMPLETELY discounts the fact we can no longer trade on our word in the region. Turkey knows they can roll us because Trump is a pushover. Go spend some money at one of his ****ty resorts and flatter him in public and he'll do whatever he wants because he's constantly searching for the love his father would never give him.
Oh. And there's also the genocide being explained away by the supposedly pro-life people.
But even past all that, you keep acting like this isn't destabilizing -it is. And that makes us MORE dangerous. Moving 150ish soldiers completely destabilized the area. 150 soldiers is a GREAT investment.
Ridiculously short-sighted.
Genocide? As someone who's seen first hand genocide aftermath in East/Central Africa, that's not what's happening here. Oh the Kurds have had a beef with Turkey for decades, and they may be trying to tie that into it, but nothing is happening even close to a genocide type action due to US troop withdrawal, or other recent decisions or actions. It's a nasty war, so casualties are happening, but our good ol' Kurdish allies have been using the arms we gave them to attack and mortar Turkish border towns, so no one's hands are clean. In fact, the cease-fire seems to be holding mostly, and I know this will be disturbingly shocking, but Turkey and Russia are talking about how to normalize Northern Syria with a safe zone, resettle some of the millions of refugees they're having to deal with, and convince Syria that Turkey doesn't want that land for themselves (something Assad thinks they're doing, and the Kurds actually DO want).
And it isn't just about how many troops we have there, but how much weaponry and direction we're giving to a military force that is a) Viewed as and shown that it is an enemy to Turkey b) Is not only fighting ISIS, but also the Syrian Army, thus agitating and acting as a Civil War rebel army, thus putting the US as a player in the War against Assad. c) Is simply a militia with no sovereign interest, but is fighting to garner land claims from an independent sovereign nation.
And you want to play the "we can't be trusted in the region anymore" card? If we could be trusted in the region, we wouldn't be in so many damn skirmishes there in the first place. That American tradition was unfortunately carried on by Trump, but has a long history across numerous administrations. I remember when we flipped allegiance on a guy named Saddam Hussein, which is likely the catalyst to why we're even arguing over this topic nearly 3 decades later.
Let the crazies work it out instead of always putting our lives, money, and weaponry on the line that inevitably complicates it for everyone involved. As quash mentioned, unless we see some ISIS camps training export terrorists, we have no reason to have any involvement.
How's that troop withdrawal going?
Oh. Wait.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/24/pentagon-planning-send-tanks-armor-syria-protect-oil-fields/4089195002/
Friscobear said:
Just checking in to see if anyone has changed their mind (either side) in this thread yet.
Nope.
I'll check again later.
Nope. BBL still believes in 17 genders and enjoys getting his ass handed to him by people with common sense.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
GrowlTowel said:Friscobear said:
Just checking in to see if anyone has changed their mind (either side) in this thread yet.
Nope.
I'll check again later.
Nope. BBL still believes in 17 genders and enjoys getting his ass handed to him by people with common sense.
So would it surprise you that I disagree with this move? We're really going to protect Syrian oil fields from ISIS? Where have I heard this story and bad outcome before?BrooksBearLives said:ATL Bear said:Trash? Not only are you an emotional child in these threads and responses, your positions are formed not by independent thought, but your disdain for Trump, and a steady diet of US media bilge. I mean what the hell does Trump's hotel and whatever Father issues you're assigning to him have to do with US Near East policy? I mean, at least stay on task.BrooksBearLives said:ATL Bear said:Turkey is an ally, just FYI. Not sure how you sell out an ally to an ally. You know who's hosting over 3 million refugees from Syria? An ally. You know who likes to attack our ally? Our ally. It's a wicked web.BrooksBearLives said:
This isn't an episode of leave it to beaver where Wally learns a lesson about doing his chores.
Our President just sold out our allies and now he's talking about how Turkey needs to "clean things up." People our nation made promises to are dying.
Antics.
Get out of here.
BTW, you know who's setting up shop in Raqqa now, which was the stronghold of ISIS until Syrian Army and Kurds with US assistance drove them out? The Syrian Army. You know who likes to fight ISIS as much as us? The Syrian Army. The thing that's sticking in most people's craw at State and the Pentagon is that this was a retreat from regime change with Assad. A welcome retreat in my book. Let the crazies do the dirty work. We can monitor from Iraq and Turkey if something is needed with ISIS.
You don't know how you sell out an ally to another ally?
Really? Ever get stuck between two family members? It is absolutely possible to **** over one ally for another.
And that's what we did. You're being a little dualistic.
This take is just trash and COMPLETELY discounts the fact we can no longer trade on our word in the region. Turkey knows they can roll us because Trump is a pushover. Go spend some money at one of his ****ty resorts and flatter him in public and he'll do whatever he wants because he's constantly searching for the love his father would never give him.
Oh. And there's also the genocide being explained away by the supposedly pro-life people.
But even past all that, you keep acting like this isn't destabilizing -it is. And that makes us MORE dangerous. Moving 150ish soldiers completely destabilized the area. 150 soldiers is a GREAT investment.
Ridiculously short-sighted.
Genocide? As someone who's seen first hand genocide aftermath in East/Central Africa, that's not what's happening here. Oh the Kurds have had a beef with Turkey for decades, and they may be trying to tie that into it, but nothing is happening even close to a genocide type action due to US troop withdrawal, or other recent decisions or actions. It's a nasty war, so casualties are happening, but our good ol' Kurdish allies have been using the arms we gave them to attack and mortar Turkish border towns, so no one's hands are clean. In fact, the cease-fire seems to be holding mostly, and I know this will be disturbingly shocking, but Turkey and Russia are talking about how to normalize Northern Syria with a safe zone, resettle some of the millions of refugees they're having to deal with, and convince Syria that Turkey doesn't want that land for themselves (something Assad thinks they're doing, and the Kurds actually DO want).
And it isn't just about how many troops we have there, but how much weaponry and direction we're giving to a military force that is a) Viewed as and shown that it is an enemy to Turkey b) Is not only fighting ISIS, but also the Syrian Army, thus agitating and acting as a Civil War rebel army, thus putting the US as a player in the War against Assad. c) Is simply a militia with no sovereign interest, but is fighting to garner land claims from an independent sovereign nation.
And you want to play the "we can't be trusted in the region anymore" card? If we could be trusted in the region, we wouldn't be in so many damn skirmishes there in the first place. That American tradition was unfortunately carried on by Trump, but has a long history across numerous administrations. I remember when we flipped allegiance on a guy named Saddam Hussein, which is likely the catalyst to why we're even arguing over this topic nearly 3 decades later.
Let the crazies work it out instead of always putting our lives, money, and weaponry on the line that inevitably complicates it for everyone involved. As quash mentioned, unless we see some ISIS camps training export terrorists, we have no reason to have any involvement.
How's that troop withdrawal going?
Oh. Wait.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/24/pentagon-planning-send-tanks-armor-syria-protect-oil-fields/4089195002/
ATL Bear said:So would it surprise you that I disagree with this move? We're really going to protect Syrian oil fields from ISIS? Where have I heard this story and bad outcome before?BrooksBearLives said:ATL Bear said:Trash? Not only are you an emotional child in these threads and responses, your positions are formed not by independent thought, but your disdain for Trump, and a steady diet of US media bilge. I mean what the hell does Trump's hotel and whatever Father issues you're assigning to him have to do with US Near East policy? I mean, at least stay on task.BrooksBearLives said:ATL Bear said:Turkey is an ally, just FYI. Not sure how you sell out an ally to an ally. You know who's hosting over 3 million refugees from Syria? An ally. You know who likes to attack our ally? Our ally. It's a wicked web.BrooksBearLives said:
This isn't an episode of leave it to beaver where Wally learns a lesson about doing his chores.
Our President just sold out our allies and now he's talking about how Turkey needs to "clean things up." People our nation made promises to are dying.
Antics.
Get out of here.
BTW, you know who's setting up shop in Raqqa now, which was the stronghold of ISIS until Syrian Army and Kurds with US assistance drove them out? The Syrian Army. You know who likes to fight ISIS as much as us? The Syrian Army. The thing that's sticking in most people's craw at State and the Pentagon is that this was a retreat from regime change with Assad. A welcome retreat in my book. Let the crazies do the dirty work. We can monitor from Iraq and Turkey if something is needed with ISIS.
You don't know how you sell out an ally to another ally?
Really? Ever get stuck between two family members? It is absolutely possible to **** over one ally for another.
And that's what we did. You're being a little dualistic.
This take is just trash and COMPLETELY discounts the fact we can no longer trade on our word in the region. Turkey knows they can roll us because Trump is a pushover. Go spend some money at one of his ****ty resorts and flatter him in public and he'll do whatever he wants because he's constantly searching for the love his father would never give him.
Oh. And there's also the genocide being explained away by the supposedly pro-life people.
But even past all that, you keep acting like this isn't destabilizing -it is. And that makes us MORE dangerous. Moving 150ish soldiers completely destabilized the area. 150 soldiers is a GREAT investment.
Ridiculously short-sighted.
Genocide? As someone who's seen first hand genocide aftermath in East/Central Africa, that's not what's happening here. Oh the Kurds have had a beef with Turkey for decades, and they may be trying to tie that into it, but nothing is happening even close to a genocide type action due to US troop withdrawal, or other recent decisions or actions. It's a nasty war, so casualties are happening, but our good ol' Kurdish allies have been using the arms we gave them to attack and mortar Turkish border towns, so no one's hands are clean. In fact, the cease-fire seems to be holding mostly, and I know this will be disturbingly shocking, but Turkey and Russia are talking about how to normalize Northern Syria with a safe zone, resettle some of the millions of refugees they're having to deal with, and convince Syria that Turkey doesn't want that land for themselves (something Assad thinks they're doing, and the Kurds actually DO want).
And it isn't just about how many troops we have there, but how much weaponry and direction we're giving to a military force that is a) Viewed as and shown that it is an enemy to Turkey b) Is not only fighting ISIS, but also the Syrian Army, thus agitating and acting as a Civil War rebel army, thus putting the US as a player in the War against Assad. c) Is simply a militia with no sovereign interest, but is fighting to garner land claims from an independent sovereign nation.
And you want to play the "we can't be trusted in the region anymore" card? If we could be trusted in the region, we wouldn't be in so many damn skirmishes there in the first place. That American tradition was unfortunately carried on by Trump, but has a long history across numerous administrations. I remember when we flipped allegiance on a guy named Saddam Hussein, which is likely the catalyst to why we're even arguing over this topic nearly 3 decades later.
Let the crazies work it out instead of always putting our lives, money, and weaponry on the line that inevitably complicates it for everyone involved. As quash mentioned, unless we see some ISIS camps training export terrorists, we have no reason to have any involvement.
How's that troop withdrawal going?
Oh. Wait.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/24/pentagon-planning-send-tanks-armor-syria-protect-oil-fields/4089195002/
I want to know if you're actually surprised by this.
My claim all along is that this had NOTHING to do with any strategic move on Trump's part. He didn't talk to advisors. He just got rolled by Erdogan. Reports from
The front lines reflect that the Pentagon had no idea this was going to happen and troops were essentially ordered to get in a car, drive, and they'd be told where to go when they got there. It's nuts.
And this all goes back to the point of this thread.
The President is REALLY bad at being President. He's a massive ****up. He doesn't know what he's doing.
I disagree that he got rolled by Erdogan, and I'm not surprised that he would make decisions outside of the circle of the bureaucrats. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. But this is an erratic reversal if it follows this path.BrooksBearLives said:ATL Bear said:So would it surprise you that I disagree with this move? We're really going to protect Syrian oil fields from ISIS? Where have I heard this story and bad outcome before?BrooksBearLives said:ATL Bear said:Trash? Not only are you an emotional child in these threads and responses, your positions are formed not by independent thought, but your disdain for Trump, and a steady diet of US media bilge. I mean what the hell does Trump's hotel and whatever Father issues you're assigning to him have to do with US Near East policy? I mean, at least stay on task.BrooksBearLives said:ATL Bear said:Turkey is an ally, just FYI. Not sure how you sell out an ally to an ally. You know who's hosting over 3 million refugees from Syria? An ally. You know who likes to attack our ally? Our ally. It's a wicked web.BrooksBearLives said:
This isn't an episode of leave it to beaver where Wally learns a lesson about doing his chores.
Our President just sold out our allies and now he's talking about how Turkey needs to "clean things up." People our nation made promises to are dying.
Antics.
Get out of here.
BTW, you know who's setting up shop in Raqqa now, which was the stronghold of ISIS until Syrian Army and Kurds with US assistance drove them out? The Syrian Army. You know who likes to fight ISIS as much as us? The Syrian Army. The thing that's sticking in most people's craw at State and the Pentagon is that this was a retreat from regime change with Assad. A welcome retreat in my book. Let the crazies do the dirty work. We can monitor from Iraq and Turkey if something is needed with ISIS.
You don't know how you sell out an ally to another ally?
Really? Ever get stuck between two family members? It is absolutely possible to **** over one ally for another.
And that's what we did. You're being a little dualistic.
This take is just trash and COMPLETELY discounts the fact we can no longer trade on our word in the region. Turkey knows they can roll us because Trump is a pushover. Go spend some money at one of his ****ty resorts and flatter him in public and he'll do whatever he wants because he's constantly searching for the love his father would never give him.
Oh. And there's also the genocide being explained away by the supposedly pro-life people.
But even past all that, you keep acting like this isn't destabilizing -it is. And that makes us MORE dangerous. Moving 150ish soldiers completely destabilized the area. 150 soldiers is a GREAT investment.
Ridiculously short-sighted.
Genocide? As someone who's seen first hand genocide aftermath in East/Central Africa, that's not what's happening here. Oh the Kurds have had a beef with Turkey for decades, and they may be trying to tie that into it, but nothing is happening even close to a genocide type action due to US troop withdrawal, or other recent decisions or actions. It's a nasty war, so casualties are happening, but our good ol' Kurdish allies have been using the arms we gave them to attack and mortar Turkish border towns, so no one's hands are clean. In fact, the cease-fire seems to be holding mostly, and I know this will be disturbingly shocking, but Turkey and Russia are talking about how to normalize Northern Syria with a safe zone, resettle some of the millions of refugees they're having to deal with, and convince Syria that Turkey doesn't want that land for themselves (something Assad thinks they're doing, and the Kurds actually DO want).
And it isn't just about how many troops we have there, but how much weaponry and direction we're giving to a military force that is a) Viewed as and shown that it is an enemy to Turkey b) Is not only fighting ISIS, but also the Syrian Army, thus agitating and acting as a Civil War rebel army, thus putting the US as a player in the War against Assad. c) Is simply a militia with no sovereign interest, but is fighting to garner land claims from an independent sovereign nation.
And you want to play the "we can't be trusted in the region anymore" card? If we could be trusted in the region, we wouldn't be in so many damn skirmishes there in the first place. That American tradition was unfortunately carried on by Trump, but has a long history across numerous administrations. I remember when we flipped allegiance on a guy named Saddam Hussein, which is likely the catalyst to why we're even arguing over this topic nearly 3 decades later.
Let the crazies work it out instead of always putting our lives, money, and weaponry on the line that inevitably complicates it for everyone involved. As quash mentioned, unless we see some ISIS camps training export terrorists, we have no reason to have any involvement.
How's that troop withdrawal going?
Oh. Wait.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/24/pentagon-planning-send-tanks-armor-syria-protect-oil-fields/4089195002/
I want to know if you're actually surprised by this.
My claim all along is that this had NOTHING to do with any strategic move on Trump's part. He didn't talk to advisors. He just got rolled by Erdogan. Reports from
The front lines reflect that the Pentagon had no idea this was going to happen and troops were essentially ordered to get in a car, drive, and they'd be told where to go when they got there. It's nuts.
And this all goes back to the point of this thread.
The President is REALLY bad at being President. He's a massive ****up. He doesn't know what he's doing.
ATL Bear said:I disagree that he got rolled by Erdogan, and I'm not surprised that he would make decisions outside of the circle of the bureaucrats. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. But this is an erratic reversal if it follows this path.BrooksBearLives said:ATL Bear said:So would it surprise you that I disagree with this move? We're really going to protect Syrian oil fields from ISIS? Where have I heard this story and bad outcome before?BrooksBearLives said:ATL Bear said:Trash? Not only are you an emotional child in these threads and responses, your positions are formed not by independent thought, but your disdain for Trump, and a steady diet of US media bilge. I mean what the hell does Trump's hotel and whatever Father issues you're assigning to him have to do with US Near East policy? I mean, at least stay on task.BrooksBearLives said:ATL Bear said:Turkey is an ally, just FYI. Not sure how you sell out an ally to an ally. You know who's hosting over 3 million refugees from Syria? An ally. You know who likes to attack our ally? Our ally. It's a wicked web.BrooksBearLives said:
This isn't an episode of leave it to beaver where Wally learns a lesson about doing his chores.
Our President just sold out our allies and now he's talking about how Turkey needs to "clean things up." People our nation made promises to are dying.
Antics.
Get out of here.
BTW, you know who's setting up shop in Raqqa now, which was the stronghold of ISIS until Syrian Army and Kurds with US assistance drove them out? The Syrian Army. You know who likes to fight ISIS as much as us? The Syrian Army. The thing that's sticking in most people's craw at State and the Pentagon is that this was a retreat from regime change with Assad. A welcome retreat in my book. Let the crazies do the dirty work. We can monitor from Iraq and Turkey if something is needed with ISIS.
You don't know how you sell out an ally to another ally?
Really? Ever get stuck between two family members? It is absolutely possible to **** over one ally for another.
And that's what we did. You're being a little dualistic.
This take is just trash and COMPLETELY discounts the fact we can no longer trade on our word in the region. Turkey knows they can roll us because Trump is a pushover. Go spend some money at one of his ****ty resorts and flatter him in public and he'll do whatever he wants because he's constantly searching for the love his father would never give him.
Oh. And there's also the genocide being explained away by the supposedly pro-life people.
But even past all that, you keep acting like this isn't destabilizing -it is. And that makes us MORE dangerous. Moving 150ish soldiers completely destabilized the area. 150 soldiers is a GREAT investment.
Ridiculously short-sighted.
Genocide? As someone who's seen first hand genocide aftermath in East/Central Africa, that's not what's happening here. Oh the Kurds have had a beef with Turkey for decades, and they may be trying to tie that into it, but nothing is happening even close to a genocide type action due to US troop withdrawal, or other recent decisions or actions. It's a nasty war, so casualties are happening, but our good ol' Kurdish allies have been using the arms we gave them to attack and mortar Turkish border towns, so no one's hands are clean. In fact, the cease-fire seems to be holding mostly, and I know this will be disturbingly shocking, but Turkey and Russia are talking about how to normalize Northern Syria with a safe zone, resettle some of the millions of refugees they're having to deal with, and convince Syria that Turkey doesn't want that land for themselves (something Assad thinks they're doing, and the Kurds actually DO want).
And it isn't just about how many troops we have there, but how much weaponry and direction we're giving to a military force that is a) Viewed as and shown that it is an enemy to Turkey b) Is not only fighting ISIS, but also the Syrian Army, thus agitating and acting as a Civil War rebel army, thus putting the US as a player in the War against Assad. c) Is simply a militia with no sovereign interest, but is fighting to garner land claims from an independent sovereign nation.
And you want to play the "we can't be trusted in the region anymore" card? If we could be trusted in the region, we wouldn't be in so many damn skirmishes there in the first place. That American tradition was unfortunately carried on by Trump, but has a long history across numerous administrations. I remember when we flipped allegiance on a guy named Saddam Hussein, which is likely the catalyst to why we're even arguing over this topic nearly 3 decades later.
Let the crazies work it out instead of always putting our lives, money, and weaponry on the line that inevitably complicates it for everyone involved. As quash mentioned, unless we see some ISIS camps training export terrorists, we have no reason to have any involvement.
How's that troop withdrawal going?
Oh. Wait.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/24/pentagon-planning-send-tanks-armor-syria-protect-oil-fields/4089195002/
I want to know if you're actually surprised by this.
My claim all along is that this had NOTHING to do with any strategic move on Trump's part. He didn't talk to advisors. He just got rolled by Erdogan. Reports from
The front lines reflect that the Pentagon had no idea this was going to happen and troops were essentially ordered to get in a car, drive, and they'd be told where to go when they got there. It's nuts.
And this all goes back to the point of this thread.
The President is REALLY bad at being President. He's a massive ****up. He doesn't know what he's doing.
Ok. I'm glad we're talking.
What leads you to believe he did not get rolled by Erdogan? There are reasons to think he did. 1) this was an ABRUPT change of course. Just last year he defended his decision not to pull out. He called the Kurds "heroes" and "allies that died for us." This was a sharp change of course. 2) his advisors were taken by surprise completely. That could work, I guess, if you're knowledgeable on the subject matter, but no one is saying the President is. He's very much NOT an insider. 3) the messaging around this is so bad. First it was about one thing, then it was about supporting Turkey. Then we were threatening Turkey with economic ruin. Then it was about Isis. Then it was about bringing troops home.... now we're sending them back.
I know what YOU think. But this administration doesn't agree with your reasoning. Obviously.
Definition of TDS = BBL
Self-tackleization - definition - derailing your own thread
I can't really speak for this President, or any other for that matter. All I can do is express my opinion based on the knowledge I have of the region, the history, and the information we all try to parse on the ground situation from various sources. Trump's decision to pull out was sound from a strategy perspective regardless of tactic. The political and diplomatic games played by all sides are simply distractions (flip flop, letter, making fun of the letter, etc.). I imagine he's having to appease several constituents behind the scenes who come into his office with all sorts of disturbing scenarios. It can make Trump's "decisiveness" difficult at times. Occasionally it's his sometimes amateurish approach to governing and other times it's the inherent fog of ingrained bureaucratic interests that create the problem for clarity.BrooksBearLives said:ATL Bear said:I disagree that he got rolled by Erdogan, and I'm not surprised that he would make decisions outside of the circle of the bureaucrats. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. But this is an erratic reversal if it follows this path.BrooksBearLives said:ATL Bear said:So would it surprise you that I disagree with this move? We're really going to protect Syrian oil fields from ISIS? Where have I heard this story and bad outcome before?BrooksBearLives said:ATL Bear said:Trash? Not only are you an emotional child in these threads and responses, your positions are formed not by independent thought, but your disdain for Trump, and a steady diet of US media bilge. I mean what the hell does Trump's hotel and whatever Father issues you're assigning to him have to do with US Near East policy? I mean, at least stay on task.BrooksBearLives said:ATL Bear said:Turkey is an ally, just FYI. Not sure how you sell out an ally to an ally. You know who's hosting over 3 million refugees from Syria? An ally. You know who likes to attack our ally? Our ally. It's a wicked web.BrooksBearLives said:
This isn't an episode of leave it to beaver where Wally learns a lesson about doing his chores.
Our President just sold out our allies and now he's talking about how Turkey needs to "clean things up." People our nation made promises to are dying.
Antics.
Get out of here.
BTW, you know who's setting up shop in Raqqa now, which was the stronghold of ISIS until Syrian Army and Kurds with US assistance drove them out? The Syrian Army. You know who likes to fight ISIS as much as us? The Syrian Army. The thing that's sticking in most people's craw at State and the Pentagon is that this was a retreat from regime change with Assad. A welcome retreat in my book. Let the crazies do the dirty work. We can monitor from Iraq and Turkey if something is needed with ISIS.
You don't know how you sell out an ally to another ally?
Really? Ever get stuck between two family members? It is absolutely possible to **** over one ally for another.
And that's what we did. You're being a little dualistic.
This take is just trash and COMPLETELY discounts the fact we can no longer trade on our word in the region. Turkey knows they can roll us because Trump is a pushover. Go spend some money at one of his ****ty resorts and flatter him in public and he'll do whatever he wants because he's constantly searching for the love his father would never give him.
Oh. And there's also the genocide being explained away by the supposedly pro-life people.
But even past all that, you keep acting like this isn't destabilizing -it is. And that makes us MORE dangerous. Moving 150ish soldiers completely destabilized the area. 150 soldiers is a GREAT investment.
Ridiculously short-sighted.
Genocide? As someone who's seen first hand genocide aftermath in East/Central Africa, that's not what's happening here. Oh the Kurds have had a beef with Turkey for decades, and they may be trying to tie that into it, but nothing is happening even close to a genocide type action due to US troop withdrawal, or other recent decisions or actions. It's a nasty war, so casualties are happening, but our good ol' Kurdish allies have been using the arms we gave them to attack and mortar Turkish border towns, so no one's hands are clean. In fact, the cease-fire seems to be holding mostly, and I know this will be disturbingly shocking, but Turkey and Russia are talking about how to normalize Northern Syria with a safe zone, resettle some of the millions of refugees they're having to deal with, and convince Syria that Turkey doesn't want that land for themselves (something Assad thinks they're doing, and the Kurds actually DO want).
And it isn't just about how many troops we have there, but how much weaponry and direction we're giving to a military force that is a) Viewed as and shown that it is an enemy to Turkey b) Is not only fighting ISIS, but also the Syrian Army, thus agitating and acting as a Civil War rebel army, thus putting the US as a player in the War against Assad. c) Is simply a militia with no sovereign interest, but is fighting to garner land claims from an independent sovereign nation.
And you want to play the "we can't be trusted in the region anymore" card? If we could be trusted in the region, we wouldn't be in so many damn skirmishes there in the first place. That American tradition was unfortunately carried on by Trump, but has a long history across numerous administrations. I remember when we flipped allegiance on a guy named Saddam Hussein, which is likely the catalyst to why we're even arguing over this topic nearly 3 decades later.
Let the crazies work it out instead of always putting our lives, money, and weaponry on the line that inevitably complicates it for everyone involved. As quash mentioned, unless we see some ISIS camps training export terrorists, we have no reason to have any involvement.
How's that troop withdrawal going?
Oh. Wait.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/24/pentagon-planning-send-tanks-armor-syria-protect-oil-fields/4089195002/
I want to know if you're actually surprised by this.
My claim all along is that this had NOTHING to do with any strategic move on Trump's part. He didn't talk to advisors. He just got rolled by Erdogan. Reports from
The front lines reflect that the Pentagon had no idea this was going to happen and troops were essentially ordered to get in a car, drive, and they'd be told where to go when they got there. It's nuts.
And this all goes back to the point of this thread.
The President is REALLY bad at being President. He's a massive ****up. He doesn't know what he's doing.
Ok. I'm glad we're talking.
What leads you to believe he did not get rolled by Erdogan? There are reasons to think he did. 1) this was an ABRUPT change of course. Just last year he defended his decision not to pull out. He called the Kurds "heroes" and "allies that died for us." This was a sharp change of course. 2) his advisors were taken by surprise completely. That could work, I guess, if you're knowledgeable on the subject matter, but no one is saying the President is. He's very much NOT an insider. 3) the messaging around this is so bad. First it was about one thing, then it was about supporting Turkey. Then we were threatening Turkey with economic ruin. Then it was about Isis. Then it was about bringing troops home.... now we're sending them back.
I know what YOU think. But this administration doesn't agree with your reasoning. Obviously.
The reason I don't think Erdogan "rolled the President" is because he had the military advantage over an enemy he'd love to crush, but he was willing to hold off. Turkey has not been afraid in the past to obliterate its enemies. It may not have been done with grace and the appearance of good faith, but it was done.
Finally, let's not forget his troop pullout is the reversal of an almost decade old approach to the Arab Spring, not to mention decades of anti-Syrian sentiment within the State Dept, the Pentagon, and the intel community. Those are people's lives dedicated to keeping our agencies believing Syria, ISIS, Iran, Russia, etc. are serious global threats due to this regional conflict and require our direct involvement. I'm simply not convinced on a micro or macro scale. To put it simply, I think it's foolish for us to die in Syria or for Syria.
BrooksBearLives said:
He's not playing 3-dimensional chess.
He's a simple rich kid who has failed up his entire life.
He's going to ruin the party on his way out.
BBL showing his increasing level of TDS today
6 weeks in and still no impeachment vote. Longer than Bill Clinton.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
GrowlTowel said:
6 weeks in and still no impeachment vote. Longer than Bill Clinton.
You know that investigations need to be done BEFORE they vote, right?
Ken Star investigated for over two years before Linda Tripp even started taping Monica.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1998/nov/18/clinton.usa
BrooksBearLives said:GrowlTowel said:
6 weeks in and still no impeachment vote. Longer than Bill Clinton.
You know that investigations need to be done BEFORE they vote, right?
Ken Star investigated for over two years before Linda Tripp even started taping Monica.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1998/nov/18/clinton.usa
Are there meds that could help this little fellas TDS?
If so, that would help everyone on this site
Impeachment done right respects the Constitution. I am in no rush. Are you?
Yes. Get the GD thing over with and move on. The drip drip drip is hopefully going to backfire if they refuse to conduct business necessary to run a government.Waco1947 said:
Impeachment done right respects the Constitution. I am in no rush. Are you?
Aliceinbubbleland said:Yes. Get the GD thing over with and move on. The drip drip drip is hopefully going to backfire if they refuse to conduct business necessary to run a government.Waco1947 said:
Impeachment done right respects the Constitution. I am in no rush. Are you?
I get why Trump fans would want this over quick and clean, but surely you understand why Dems (and the voters who gave them the House) are in no mood for that, right? If Pelosi is smart, the House will methodically investigate every offense Trump is accused of since his term started, then she will present all of that info to the public as loudly as possible and force Senators to go on record voting to support Trump against impeachment sometime around next summer at the earliest. Even better if it goes to October. Pelosi has to know Trump won't be removed by a GOP Senate for anything whatsoever, so why not use the process as a weapon against those same GOP Senators?
If Trump is lucky, he may get some cooperation from Dems on the USMCA/NAFTA 2.0, but outside of that I'd say don't expect much.
HuMcK said:Aliceinbubbleland said:Yes. Get the GD thing over with and move on. The drip drip drip is hopefully going to backfire if they refuse to conduct business necessary to run a government.Waco1947 said:
Impeachment done right respects the Constitution. I am in no rush. Are you?
I get why Trump fans would want this over quick and clean, but surely you understand why Dems (and the voters who gave them the House) are in no mood for that, right? If Pelosi is smart, the House will methodically investigate every offense Trump is accused of since his term started, then she will present all of that info to the public as loudly as possible and force Senators to go on record voting to support Trump against impeachment sometime around next summer at the earliest. Even better if it goes to October. Pelosi has to know Trump won't be removed by a GOP Senate for anything whatsoever, so why not use the process as a weapon against those same GOP Senators?
If Trump is lucky, he may get some cooperation from Dems on the USMCA/NAFTA 2.0, but outside of that I'd say don't expect much.
Exactly. As you say above, impeachment, in this case, is about politics and not much else.
D. C. Bear said:HuMcK said:Aliceinbubbleland said:Yes. Get the GD thing over with and move on. The drip drip drip is hopefully going to backfire if they refuse to conduct business necessary to run a government.Waco1947 said:
Impeachment done right respects the Constitution. I am in no rush. Are you?
I get why Trump fans would want this over quick and clean, but surely you understand why Dems (and the voters who gave them the House) are in no mood for that, right? If Pelosi is smart, the House will methodically investigate every offense Trump is accused of since his term started, then she will present all of that info to the public as loudly as possible and force Senators to go on record voting to support Trump against impeachment sometime around next summer at the earliest. Even better if it goes to October. Pelosi has to know Trump won't be removed by a GOP Senate for anything whatsoever, so why not use the process as a weapon against those same GOP Senators?
If Trump is lucky, he may get some cooperation from Dems on the USMCA/NAFTA 2.0, but outside of that I'd say don't expect much.
Exactly. As you say above, impeachment, in this case, is about politics and not much else.
Wait. What is the "else" you wish it was about?
I'm asking because.... these are politicians. Everything is political. Weird, meaningless statement. Impeachment is LITERALLY politics by its very nature.
BBL, 40 pages and the obvious answer is the Republicans are never going to admit Trump is bad at this (at least, not in the present--10 years from now, things will be different; no one pretends now that there really were WMDs in Iraq).BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:HuMcK said:Aliceinbubbleland said:Yes. Get the GD thing over with and move on. The drip drip drip is hopefully going to backfire if they refuse to conduct business necessary to run a government.Waco1947 said:
Impeachment done right respects the Constitution. I am in no rush. Are you?
I get why Trump fans would want this over quick and clean, but surely you understand why Dems (and the voters who gave them the House) are in no mood for that, right? If Pelosi is smart, the House will methodically investigate every offense Trump is accused of since his term started, then she will present all of that info to the public as loudly as possible and force Senators to go on record voting to support Trump against impeachment sometime around next summer at the earliest. Even better if it goes to October. Pelosi has to know Trump won't be removed by a GOP Senate for anything whatsoever, so why not use the process as a weapon against those same GOP Senators?
If Trump is lucky, he may get some cooperation from Dems on the USMCA/NAFTA 2.0, but outside of that I'd say don't expect much.
Exactly. As you say above, impeachment, in this case, is about politics and not much else.
Wait. What is the "else" you wish it was about?
I'm asking because.... these are politicians. Everything is political. Weird, meaningless statement. Impeachment is LITERALLY politics by its very nature.
This reminds me of that "dilemma" scenario where you see a train coming and it's about to hit a group of people. You know you can stop the train, and save many lives, by pushing one very fat man in front of the train. What do you do?
The Republicans can't bring themselves to push the fat man, even though they're gotten most of what they wanted, because then they'll lose the next election for sure. They're going to watch the train wreck and blame Democrats for not pushing the fat man hard enough and fast enough to stop it. That may work out for them. The Biblical/Trump inerrancy folks on this site will buy it.
BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:HuMcK said:Aliceinbubbleland said:Yes. Get the GD thing over with and move on. The drip drip drip is hopefully going to backfire if they refuse to conduct business necessary to run a government.Waco1947 said:
Impeachment done right respects the Constitution. I am in no rush. Are you?
I get why Trump fans would want this over quick and clean, but surely you understand why Dems (and the voters who gave them the House) are in no mood for that, right? If Pelosi is smart, the House will methodically investigate every offense Trump is accused of since his term started, then she will present all of that info to the public as loudly as possible and force Senators to go on record voting to support Trump against impeachment sometime around next summer at the earliest. Even better if it goes to October. Pelosi has to know Trump won't be removed by a GOP Senate for anything whatsoever, so why not use the process as a weapon against those same GOP Senators?
If Trump is lucky, he may get some cooperation from Dems on the USMCA/NAFTA 2.0, but outside of that I'd say don't expect much.
Exactly. As you say above, impeachment, in this case, is about politics and not much else.
Wait. What is the "else" you wish it was about?
I'm asking because.... these are politicians. Everything is political. Weird, meaningless statement. Impeachment is LITERALLY politics by its very nature.
Maintaining and/or restoring the rule of law would be nice.
Jinx 2 said:BBL, 40 pages and the obvious answer is the Republicans are never going to admit Trump is bad at this (at least, not in the present--10 years from now, things will be different; no one pretends now that there really were WMDs in Iraq).BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:HuMcK said:Aliceinbubbleland said:Yes. Get the GD thing over with and move on. The drip drip drip is hopefully going to backfire if they refuse to conduct business necessary to run a government.Waco1947 said:
Impeachment done right respects the Constitution. I am in no rush. Are you?
I get why Trump fans would want this over quick and clean, but surely you understand why Dems (and the voters who gave them the House) are in no mood for that, right? If Pelosi is smart, the House will methodically investigate every offense Trump is accused of since his term started, then she will present all of that info to the public as loudly as possible and force Senators to go on record voting to support Trump against impeachment sometime around next summer at the earliest. Even better if it goes to October. Pelosi has to know Trump won't be removed by a GOP Senate for anything whatsoever, so why not use the process as a weapon against those same GOP Senators?
If Trump is lucky, he may get some cooperation from Dems on the USMCA/NAFTA 2.0, but outside of that I'd say don't expect much.
Exactly. As you say above, impeachment, in this case, is about politics and not much else.
Wait. What is the "else" you wish it was about?
I'm asking because.... these are politicians. Everything is political. Weird, meaningless statement. Impeachment is LITERALLY politics by its very nature.
This reminds me of that "dilemma" scenario where you see a train coming and it's about to hit a group of people. You know you can stop the train, and save many lives, by pushing one very fat man in front of the train. What do you do?
The Republicans can't bring themselves to push the fat man, even though they're gotten most of what they wanted, because then they'll lose the next election for sure. They're going to watch the train wreck and blame Democrats for not pushing the fat man hard enough and fast enough to stop it. That may work out for them. The Biblical/Trump inerrancy folks on this site will buy it.
I think it's more venal than that.
Admitting he's a piece of **** means admitting they got conned. And Republicans/conservatives don't EVER get conned. They alone have the market cornered realism. They don't get conned. Even when they do, it's because they WANTED that Nigerian prince to have that money.
Also, it's socialism's fault and Hillary made them do it with her server emails.
D. C. Bear said:BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:HuMcK said:Aliceinbubbleland said:Yes. Get the GD thing over with and move on. The drip drip drip is hopefully going to backfire if they refuse to conduct business necessary to run a government.Waco1947 said:
Impeachment done right respects the Constitution. I am in no rush. Are you?
I get why Trump fans would want this over quick and clean, but surely you understand why Dems (and the voters who gave them the House) are in no mood for that, right? If Pelosi is smart, the House will methodically investigate every offense Trump is accused of since his term started, then she will present all of that info to the public as loudly as possible and force Senators to go on record voting to support Trump against impeachment sometime around next summer at the earliest. Even better if it goes to October. Pelosi has to know Trump won't be removed by a GOP Senate for anything whatsoever, so why not use the process as a weapon against those same GOP Senators?
If Trump is lucky, he may get some cooperation from Dems on the USMCA/NAFTA 2.0, but outside of that I'd say don't expect much.
Exactly. As you say above, impeachment, in this case, is about politics and not much else.
Wait. What is the "else" you wish it was about?
I'm asking because.... these are politicians. Everything is political. Weird, meaningless statement. Impeachment is LITERALLY politics by its very nature.
Maintaining and/or restoring the rule of law would be nice.
I'm calling every type of bull**** on this.
If you have ONE **** about the rule of law, you'd have called for impeachment after the mueller report.
BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:HuMcK said:Aliceinbubbleland said:Yes. Get the GD thing over with and move on. The drip drip drip is hopefully going to backfire if they refuse to conduct business necessary to run a government.Waco1947 said:
Impeachment done right respects the Constitution. I am in no rush. Are you?
I get why Trump fans would want this over quick and clean, but surely you understand why Dems (and the voters who gave them the House) are in no mood for that, right? If Pelosi is smart, the House will methodically investigate every offense Trump is accused of since his term started, then she will present all of that info to the public as loudly as possible and force Senators to go on record voting to support Trump against impeachment sometime around next summer at the earliest. Even better if it goes to October. Pelosi has to know Trump won't be removed by a GOP Senate for anything whatsoever, so why not use the process as a weapon against those same GOP Senators?
If Trump is lucky, he may get some cooperation from Dems on the USMCA/NAFTA 2.0, but outside of that I'd say don't expect much.
Exactly. As you say above, impeachment, in this case, is about politics and not much else.
Wait. What is the "else" you wish it was about?
I'm asking because.... these are politicians. Everything is political. Weird, meaningless statement. Impeachment is LITERALLY politics by its very nature.
Maintaining and/or restoring the rule of law would be nice.
I'm calling every type of bull**** on this.
If you have ONE **** about the rule of law, you'd have called for impeachment after the mueller report.
Whatever.
Jinx 2 said:BBL, 40 pages and the obvious answer is the Republicans are never going to admit Trump is bad at this (at least, not in the present--10 years from now, things will be different; no one pretends now that there really were WMDs in Iraq).BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:HuMcK said:Aliceinbubbleland said:Yes. Get the GD thing over with and move on. The drip drip drip is hopefully going to backfire if they refuse to conduct business necessary to run a government.Waco1947 said:
Impeachment done right respects the Constitution. I am in no rush. Are you?
I get why Trump fans would want this over quick and clean, but surely you understand why Dems (and the voters who gave them the House) are in no mood for that, right? If Pelosi is smart, the House will methodically investigate every offense Trump is accused of since his term started, then she will present all of that info to the public as loudly as possible and force Senators to go on record voting to support Trump against impeachment sometime around next summer at the earliest. Even better if it goes to October. Pelosi has to know Trump won't be removed by a GOP Senate for anything whatsoever, so why not use the process as a weapon against those same GOP Senators?
If Trump is lucky, he may get some cooperation from Dems on the USMCA/NAFTA 2.0, but outside of that I'd say don't expect much.
Exactly. As you say above, impeachment, in this case, is about politics and not much else.
Wait. What is the "else" you wish it was about?
I'm asking because.... these are politicians. Everything is political. Weird, meaningless statement. Impeachment is LITERALLY politics by its very nature.
This reminds me of that "dilemma" scenario where you see a train coming and it's about to hit a group of people. You know you can stop the train, and save many lives, by pushing one very fat man in front of the train. What do you do?
The Republicans can't bring themselves to push the fat man, even though they're gotten most of what they wanted, because then they'll lose the next election for sure. They're going to watch the train wreck and blame Democrats for not pushing the fat man hard enough and fast enough to stop it. That may work out for them. The Biblical/Trump inerrancy folks on this site will buy it.
The difference between you two and Trump's supporters is that at least some of Trump's supporters seem to have learned from the WMD misadventure. Bush was a relatively qualified and experienced politician compared to Trump, and he bamboozled (most of) us into one of the worst foreign policy fiascos in our history. Trump has every reason to do the same. There are plenty of accusations, albeit dubious ones, about WMD use by Syria. Most of the political and military establishment have been pushing for regime change, which is what all this controversy is really about (anyone who thinks it's about concern for the Kurds is beyond naive). In spite of all this, Trump is refusing to repeat Bush's mistake. And you all are simply demonstrating that it's all about partisan politics. Whether he follows the neocon playbook or stakes out a humbler policy, a Republican can do no right.BrooksBearLives said:
I think it's more venal than that.
Admitting he's a piece of **** means admitting they got conned. And Republicans/conservatives don't EVER get conned. They alone have the market cornered realism. They don't get conned. Even when they do, it's because they WANTED that Nigerian prince to have that money.
Also, it's socialism's fault and Hillary made them do it with her server emails.
I pray this happens. And Pelosi is smart, much smarter than most politicians currently in office. If it doesn't happen, there will be a good reason why.HuMcK said:Aliceinbubbleland said:Yes. Get the GD thing over with and move on. The drip drip drip is hopefully going to backfire if they refuse to conduct business necessary to run a government.Waco1947 said:
Impeachment done right respects the Constitution. I am in no rush. Are you?
If Pelosi is smart, the House will methodically investigate every offense Trump is accused of since his term started,
Jinx 2 said:BBL, 40 pages and the obvious answer is the Republicans are never going to admit Trump is bad at this (at least, not in the present--10 years from now, things will be different; no one pretends now that there really were WMDs in Iraq).BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:HuMcK said:Aliceinbubbleland said:Yes. Get the GD thing over with and move on. The drip drip drip is hopefully going to backfire if they refuse to conduct business necessary to run a government.Waco1947 said:
Impeachment done right respects the Constitution. I am in no rush. Are you?
I get why Trump fans would want this over quick and clean, but surely you understand why Dems (and the voters who gave them the House) are in no mood for that, right? If Pelosi is smart, the House will methodically investigate every offense Trump is accused of since his term started, then she will present all of that info to the public as loudly as possible and force Senators to go on record voting to support Trump against impeachment sometime around next summer at the earliest. Even better if it goes to October. Pelosi has to know Trump won't be removed by a GOP Senate for anything whatsoever, so why not use the process as a weapon against those same GOP Senators?
If Trump is lucky, he may get some cooperation from Dems on the USMCA/NAFTA 2.0, but outside of that I'd say don't expect much.
Exactly. As you say above, impeachment, in this case, is about politics and not much else.
Wait. What is the "else" you wish it was about?
I'm asking because.... these are politicians. Everything is political. Weird, meaningless statement. Impeachment is LITERALLY politics by its very nature.
This reminds me of that "dilemma" scenario where you see a train coming and it's about to hit a group of people. You know you can stop the train, and save many lives, by pushing one very fat man in front of the train. What do you do?
The Republicans can't bring themselves to push the fat man, even though they're gotten most of what they wanted, because then they'll lose the next election for sure. They're going to watch the train wreck and blame Democrats for not pushing the fat man hard enough and fast enough to stop it. That may work out for them. The Biblical/Trump inerrancy folks on this site will buy it.
True. Same with Obama and Clinton. And may have God had mercy on our souls had the most deplorable been elected president.
Pucker up buttercup. Fat man going to run rail AOC style over everyone of your abortion climate change pipe dreams.
Damn if feels good to be a gangster.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
GrowlTowel said:Jinx 2 said:BBL, 40 pages and the obvious answer is the Republicans are never going to admit Trump is bad at this (at least, not in the present--10 years from now, things will be different; no one pretends now that there really were WMDs in Iraq).BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:HuMcK said:Aliceinbubbleland said:Yes. Get the GD thing over with and move on. The drip drip drip is hopefully going to backfire if they refuse to conduct business necessary to run a government.Waco1947 said:
Impeachment done right respects the Constitution. I am in no rush. Are you?
I get why Trump fans would want this over quick and clean, but surely you understand why Dems (and the voters who gave them the House) are in no mood for that, right? If Pelosi is smart, the House will methodically investigate every offense Trump is accused of since his term started, then she will present all of that info to the public as loudly as possible and force Senators to go on record voting to support Trump against impeachment sometime around next summer at the earliest. Even better if it goes to October. Pelosi has to know Trump won't be removed by a GOP Senate for anything whatsoever, so why not use the process as a weapon against those same GOP Senators?
If Trump is lucky, he may get some cooperation from Dems on the USMCA/NAFTA 2.0, but outside of that I'd say don't expect much.
Exactly. As you say above, impeachment, in this case, is about politics and not much else.
Wait. What is the "else" you wish it was about?
I'm asking because.... these are politicians. Everything is political. Weird, meaningless statement. Impeachment is LITERALLY politics by its very nature.
This reminds me of that "dilemma" scenario where you see a train coming and it's about to hit a group of people. You know you can stop the train, and save many lives, by pushing one very fat man in front of the train. What do you do?
The Republicans can't bring themselves to push the fat man, even though they're gotten most of what they wanted, because then they'll lose the next election for sure. They're going to watch the train wreck and blame Democrats for not pushing the fat man hard enough and fast enough to stop it. That may work out for them. The Biblical/Trump inerrancy folks on this site will buy it.
True. Same with Obama and Clinton. And may have God had mercy on our souls had the most deplorable been elected president.
Pucker up buttercup. Fat man going to run rail AOC style over everyone of your abortion climate change pipe dreams.
Damn if feels good to be a gangster.
You're kind of hateful.
Sad.
Then you will shout "RUSH TO JUDGMENT!"Aliceinbubbleland said:Yes. Get the GD thing over with and move on. The drip drip drip is hopefully going to backfire if they refuse to conduct business necessary to run a government.Waco1947 said:
Impeachment done right respects the Constitution. I am in no rush. Are you?
Let it play out. If your guy is innocent then the Ds are in trouble. If the guy is guilty then your in trouble.
Let the Constitution do its work.
Jinx 2 said:BBL, 40 pages and the obvious answer is the Republicans are never going to admit Trump is bad at this (at least, not in the present--10 years from now, things will be different; no one pretends now that there really were WMDs in Iraq).BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:HuMcK said:Aliceinbubbleland said:Yes. Get the GD thing over with and move on. The drip drip drip is hopefully going to backfire if they refuse to conduct business necessary to run a government.Waco1947 said:
Impeachment done right respects the Constitution. I am in no rush. Are you?
I get why Trump fans would want this over quick and clean, but surely you understand why Dems (and the voters who gave them the House) are in no mood for that, right? If Pelosi is smart, the House will methodically investigate every offense Trump is accused of since his term started, then she will present all of that info to the public as loudly as possible and force Senators to go on record voting to support Trump against impeachment sometime around next summer at the earliest. Even better if it goes to October. Pelosi has to know Trump won't be removed by a GOP Senate for anything whatsoever, so why not use the process as a weapon against those same GOP Senators?
If Trump is lucky, he may get some cooperation from Dems on the USMCA/NAFTA 2.0, but outside of that I'd say don't expect much.
Exactly. As you say above, impeachment, in this case, is about politics and not much else.
Wait. What is the "else" you wish it was about?
I'm asking because.... these are politicians. Everything is political. Weird, meaningless statement. Impeachment is LITERALLY politics by its very nature.
This reminds me of that "dilemma" scenario where you see a train coming and it's about to hit a group of people. You know you can stop the train, and save many lives, by pushing one very fat man in front of the train. What do you do?
The Republicans can't bring themselves to push the fat man, even though they're gotten most of what they wanted, because then they'll lose the next election for sure. They're going to watch the train wreck and blame Democrats for not pushing the fat man hard enough and fast enough to stop it. That may work out for them. The Biblical/Trump inerrancy folks on this site will buy it.
This is a very limp wristed feminine post by Jinx after several limp wristed feminine posts by Brooksy boy
I'm beginning to wonder if that's the reason for their "activist" posts