Why don't you respond to the questions about your link? You claim your link showed liberal protestors causing problems at Berkeley when the photo was clearly of an anarchist.
Likely a member of antifa, which is a self described radical left wing group. Obviously this group is on the fringe and not representative of the left as whole, but they are nonetheless a leftist group dedicated to terrorizing their political opponents.
lol anyone remember this gem?
Originally Posted by goofyballer
You're a Trump supporter who's never demonstrated an interest in honest engagement on any topic in your entire history of posting about politics. Nothing I post will ever "do much" for you and I have no interest in fulfilling your desires to see less evidence of Trump's idiocy in this thread.
We can discuss Trumps decisions. I'm not afraid to call out Trump for doing things I think are wrong, and I won't hesitate to applaud him for doing things I like. But how are we supposed to have a discussion if you're dumping 8 links at a time? I don't have time to read through all of them and respond to each one. Kind of makes more sense to post one or two links and then add your own two cents.
Lol at these scumbags posting point for point out of the Karl Rove handbook and demanding respect. Did you guys read the handbook or does your fascist anti-American posting style just come natural to you?
First. You conveniently left out the part that the attack was made by Iranian backed Houthi rebels.
Second. How do you like the Iranian deal now? You no, after the ballistic missile test and what not.
So still not Iran that attacked and you just ignore that they lied about it being an American ship that was attacked? Seems to be a pattern with you guys, lying to get us into wars. Why do you hate America so much?
Dude you spouted off for like 3 posts talking nonsensically about whether "a few" means 12 or not which has nothing to do with what anyone was talking about, you completely invented it. Take a breather ffs.
Originally Posted by bahbahmickey
In all seriousness do you believe African Americans would be better off w/another 8 years of obama or 8 years w/ trump? If so, why?
Obama, because Republican policy (destroying welfare, increasing barriers to vote, nominating an AG who gives zero ****s about minorities and has been accused of making racist comments in the past) and rhetoric (inflaming lies about crime statistics, blaming black people for the state of inner cities that racist housing policies forced them into, blaming black people for being the victims of a racist justice system) are absolutely not going to help them.
I don't care to get into a debate in this thread litigating the individual points of that which I'm sure you fundamentally disagree with (I recall your performance in the voter ID thread and I'm sure you think the justice system is colorblind and I'm awful for suggesting it's not), but you asked what I think and why so there it is.
This is a quote from Biden's top national security advisor.
OK, so I think what you're saying is that Trump was responsible for bad stuff. I think that bad stuff is the casualties, caused, presumably by tactical errors involving aircraft noise giving away the element of surprise.
I'm willing to admit that could have happened (Trump blew his chance to tactically vet and improve the operation). The NYT article cited does not lead me to that conclusion. What else makes you think Trump screwed up? The tweet? Come on. There is nothing there.
Having a meeting over dinner as being a problem is laughable. Dinner meetings are duh, not a problem. I'm just trying to hit everything to figure out what you (or goofyballer, or the media, e.g., NYT) are saying Trump did wrong.
Or is it just, people died, Trump is president, he must have screwed up?
Do you think a decision of this magnitude is discussed and finalized over an hour while eating?
Do you think one of the top national security advisors that was in the white house two weeks ago does not still have contacts in the current white house?
Do you think one of the top former national security advisors is lying?
You seem to gloss over the "deliberate process" part of the tweet, which is by far the most important part of the statement.
"Deliberate process" looks to me like part of the same nonsense of putting someone down for having a dinner meeting. It's put there to supposedly look different from a dinner meeting, I think.
Are you saying this guy isn't political? I don't know, but I assume he's some Obama political appointee on his way out taking a shot at Trump, admittedly at an opportune time when there have been casualties.
How much had Obama's team vetted the plan? I don't know, do you? What was remaining to approve/finish/finalize the plan? I don't know, do you? A political appointee (I'm assuming this, could be wrong) juxtaposing "deliberate process" with "dinner meeting" sounds exactly like theatrics/propaganda to me.
All that said, I could be wrong. But if so, show me what they missed. How much longer than a 1 hour dinner meeting is required for this deliberate process. Answering this question would definitely involve answering what Obama's team had done previously. From what I read, they approved it but wanted to wait until the next moonless night.
Again, Trump or his team might have screwed up, but the NYT article and that tweet don't lead me there. I doubt they lead you or anyone else there either. There must be more evidence, or bias.
U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.
As a result, three officials said, the attacking SEAL team found itself dropping onto a reinforced al Qaeda base defended by landmines, snipers, and a larger than expected contingent of heavily armed Islamist extremists.
This is some serious shade for people within the military to be throwing at their commander in chief. One could theorize that on the heels of his administration starting off in trainwreck fashion with the travel ban and everything, Trump wanted to score a quick and visible PR victory with successful military action in Yemen, throwing caution to the wind and getting innocent people + an American soldier killed in the process.
For all the demanded investigations and outrage expressed over FOUR DEAD AMERICANS IN BENGHAZIIIII by Republicans in the last year, they should be asking the same questions about why Donald Trump sent unprepared and outgunned troops into a dangerous situation - assuming that they aren't total hypocrites, anyway.
I personally don't care about the "he hosted dinner" aspect, but I imagine the rest of the content in that tweet is accurate (and it matches up with NYT's reporting on it, linked earlier).
This is some serious shade for people within the military to be throwing at their commander in chief.
Agreed, and that makes it more likely to be true. Are they right, or are they out of line? I think we don't know. Could we find out that it was a big mistake? Maybe. So far, I still suspect it was a success. 14 presumed terrorists killed. Intel seized. Losing one US troop is a big deal though.
No, I care about civilian casualties. I think we need to try to minimize them. Not sure how to balance that against the necessary goal of killing bad guys.
What do you think? How many civilian casualties is acceptable? Is it zero for you? Take the extreme case, where it's a known villain. Say, when we got Bin Laden, if there was one non-combatant casualty, would you still green light the operation if you had the power?
That balance exists with the deaths of American soldiers too, though; you already seem to acknowledge this, since despite the death of the SEAL in the Yemen raid you are still largely buying the administration line that it was a success.
It's just telling that when talking about the downsides of this raid, you listed the one dead American soldier and did not list the dozens of dead civilians.
I haven't read anything about the admin calling this a success, unless it's in one of those two articles (might be there and I'm not remembering). It's just my judgment that 14 to 1 with intel (if valuable) is still probably a success.
You're right that I'm focused more on good guy/bad guy ratios. The civilian loss is a problem though. Causes hearts and minds to go against us.
You didn't answer my question about what you think about how many civilian casualties is acceptable. That's fine, of course. Kind of a philosophical question anyway.