Mattis Retiring

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
19,708
Reaction score
1,177
Points
113
Trump wanting to kill Assad, like literally zero people in the world were surprised to hear that. Total nothingburger really.
Spoofin thinks that Trump should reign unchecked. Can't make that $hit up.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
16,578
Reaction score
2,050
Points
113
Ummm....you were the one complaining that Woodward should face criminal consequences. Do you not remember that....or were you having a Trump moment?

You're like the rioter that smashes a window with witnesses and video surveillance.....and comes up with the defense of "no I didn't". You deflected in this thread much like basically EVERY other Trump thread. For someone who claims to not be a Trumper....your attacks on Biden are 25 to 1. Lol.

So yeah....don't kid yourself. You certainly aren't tricking anyone.
Were you dropped on your head as a kid? I think that if anyone violated their clearance they should face consequences. I have said it more than once and never swayed from it. That is what we are talking about dummy. You are the one that injected that everyone knows it is about the discussion even tho it hadn’t been the topic of discussion in the thread at all. You shifted it and then when I point that out you respond with this verbal nonsense? Is English your second language?

25:1. Wipe your tears. The problem with you lefties is that if someone doesn’t buy in to the MSM conspiracy theories then they are defending Trump. You can’t tell an anti-Howie or anti-Stocker post from a pro-Trump post. It is the definition of TDS. 25:1 seems like about the right ratio of the absolute crap you, Howie, and sidekick post in comparison to the rest of the board.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
19,708
Reaction score
1,177
Points
113
When did I say that? You apparently can make $hit up.
You think that information about the president pushing for an assassination should be kept under wraps. No? The real problem is Woodward....who exposed it?

Your right....you didn't explicitly say that Trump should reign unchecked. But for someone who said that liberal politicians are endorsing rioting and looting....and then justify that claim because of "correlation"....does it need to be explicitly said?


I know....Trumpers play by different rules. You guys have the innate ability to inject conjecture whenever you please. :rolleyes:
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
19,708
Reaction score
1,177
Points
113
Were you dropped on your head as a kid? I think that if anyone violated their clearance they should face consequences. I have said it more than once and never swayed from it. That is what we are talking about dummy. You are the one that injected that everyone knows it is about the discussion even tho it hadn’t been the topic of discussion in the thread at all. You shifted it and then when I point that out you respond with this verbal nonsense? Is English your second language?

25:1. Wipe your tears. The problem with you lefties is that if someone doesn’t buy in to the MSM conspiracy theories then they are defending Trump. You can’t tell an anti-Howie or anti-Stocker post from a pro-Trump post. It is the definition of TDS. 25:1 seems like about the right ratio of the absolute crap you, Howie, and sidekick post in comparison to the rest of the board.
DID he violate his clearance? It seems you so badly want it to be true...so you can deflect from the president calling for an assassination.

If you weren't such a blatant Trumpette....your hypocrisy wouldn't be so obvious....and it wouldn't be obvious when you're called on it.

The rest of this post screams of butthurt because you've been exposed. HOW DARE THEY REPORT ABOUT TRUMP!!!! Typical braindead righty.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
16,578
Reaction score
2,050
Points
113
You think that information about the president pushing for an assassination should be kept under wraps. No? The real problem is Woodward....who exposed it?

Your right....you didn't explicitly say that Trump should reign unchecked. But for someone who said that liberal politicians are endorsing rioting and looting....and then justify that claim because of "correlation"....does it need to be explicitly said?


I know....Trumpers play by different rules. You guys have the innate ability to inject conjecture whenever you please. :rolleyes:
Under wraps and unchecked are the same thing? How dumb are you? Clearly there were checks here. I mean, the assignation didn’t happen - did it? This shouldn’t be so hard for you.

Sure thing Stocker. Enabling the violence and the looting with the list of things isn’t the same as endorsing it. Whatever makes you sleep better.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
45,113
Reaction score
1,937
Points
113
Every discussion with stocker ends the same way.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
16,578
Reaction score
2,050
Points
113
DID he violate his clearance? It seems you so badly want it to be true...so you can deflect from the president calling for an assassination.

If you weren't such a blatant Trumpette....your hypocrisy wouldn't be so obvious....and it wouldn't be obvious when you're called on it.

The rest of this post screams of butthurt because you've been exposed. HOW DARE THEY REPORT ABOUT TRUMP!!!! Typical braindead righty.
You literally comprehend nothing. I said IF it was classified more than once. I also said I don’t have issues with those folks discussing assassinations under certain situations - yet I’m deflecting?

I have become much dumber for even trying to talk to you. Back to ignore you POS.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
19,708
Reaction score
1,177
Points
113
Under wraps and unchecked are the same thing? How dumb are you? Clearly there were checks here. I mean, the assignation didn’t happen - did it? This shouldn’t be so hard for you.

Sure thing Stocker. Enabling the violence and the looting with the list of things isn’t the same as endorsing it. Whatever makes you sleep better.
So when did Trump face any criticism for his assassination idea? Yeah....until Woodward came out with it....it basically evaporated into nothing. I get that you would have preferred that noone know about it.

Speaking of your issue with definitions.....enabling (which isn't even the case) and endorsing are the same.

You need to take a timeout. Your rapid shot ramblings have you looking more and more foolish as you attempt to defend them.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
19,708
Reaction score
1,177
Points
113
You literally comprehend nothing. I said IF it was classified more than once. I also said I don’t have issues with those folks discussing assassinations under certain situations - yet I’m deflecting?

I have become much dumber for even trying to talk to you. Back to ignore you POS.
IF it were classified. Clearly if he put it into the book then it probably wasn't. But keep dreaming that someone who hurt your king is punished.

And you can't get dumber than the bottom of the garbage pail that you started from. Figured that pointing out your blatant hypocrisy would make you stop and think...."yeah....maybe I am shilling to hard for Trump." But nope....you're doubling down on stupid.
 

Minnesota

Active member
Joined
Jul 2, 2017
Messages
913
Reaction score
195
Points
43
I’m glad he lied about it in 2018. He should have lied about it today. I can’t think of any situation where publicly confirming this is helpful to the USA. I’m also thinking Woodward should face consequences for releasing such information. Seems someone would have had to violated a clearance in some way.
Just when I think you couldn’t have any more of a baby brain, you truly outdo yourself. The question you should be asking is in what situation is regime change in Syria helpful to the USA?

Journalists should have an adversarial relationship to power, particularly when it comes to imperialist measures. God forbid the media hadn’t served as propagandist lapdogs during the lead up to the Iraq war, maybe about 1 million lives would’ve been saved.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
16,578
Reaction score
2,050
Points
113
This from the guy who said "democrats endorsed rioting and looting."

Fraud.
Again - to endorse something is to publicly support something. Democrats have publicly downplayed the violence, refused to stop it, blamed it on others, and in one case publicly stated they won’t be prosecuting most offenders of it. That is indeed publicly supporting it whether or not you want to open your eyes about it.

Oh, and this one even got involved in the rioting and looting:

Thanks for playing sidekick.
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
9,689
Reaction score
1,297
Points
113
I think the bigger point here is that Trump wanted to do something that was opposed by his military advisors.

when you have a president with a non-military background, you would think they would lean on people with more experience in those areas.

Which prompts the question - are there other examples of this where Trump wanted to do something and the military advisors said no or talked him out of it?
 

Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
9,622
Reaction score
1,326
Points
113
I think the bigger point here is that Trump wanted to do something that was opposed by his military advisors.

when you have a president with a non-military background, you would think they would lean on people with more experience in those areas.

Which prompts the question - are there other examples of this where Trump wanted to do something and the military advisors said no or talked him out of it?
I know you're not nearly this naive, SON. When you hear that he has gone against some military advisors, you are NOT hearing about the ones that he IS agreeing with. That doesn't make the news interesting.

You think he only has one or two "military advisors"? Or that they are all singing the same song in unison, all the time, every time, on every issue? Really?
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
16,578
Reaction score
2,050
Points
113
I think the bigger point here is that Trump wanted to do something that was opposed by his military advisors.

when you have a president with a non-military background, you would think they would lean on people with more experience in those areas.

Which prompts the question - are there other examples of this where Trump wanted to do something and the military advisors said no or talked him out of it?
SON - you do realize that in the end they did go with what the military advisers wanted, right?
 

Wally

Active member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
891
Reaction score
221
Points
43
Just when I think you couldn’t have any more of a baby brain, you truly outdo yourself. The question you should be asking is in what situation is regime change in Syria helpful to the USA?

Journalists should have an adversarial relationship to power, particularly when it comes to imperialist measures. God forbid the media hadn’t served as propagandist lapdogs during the lead up to the Iraq war, maybe about 1 million lives would’ve been saved.
Exactly!
Regime change in Iraq worked so well. Why aren't Trumpers pissed Trump would suggest that playbook for Syria? That's the real question.
 

USAF

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
1,426
Reaction score
1,164
Points
113
I know you're not nearly this naive, SON. When you hear that he has gone against some military advisors, you are NOT hearing about the ones that he IS agreeing with. That doesn't make the news interesting.

You think he only has one or two "military advisors"? Or that they are all singing the same song in unison, all the time, every time, on every issue? Really?
Mattis was SecDef at the time. Jeebus, you can't really be this stupid, can you?
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,573
Reaction score
1,298
Points
113
I think the bigger point here is that Trump wanted to do something that was opposed by his military advisors.

when you have a president with a non-military background, you would think they would lean on people with more experience in those areas.

Which prompts the question - are there other examples of this where Trump wanted to do something and the military advisors said no or talked him out of it?
- These anti-Trump generals have never won a war. Why would you automatically lean on them? They keep us mired endlessly in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, & Syria. War for profit. There's a revolving door between the pentagon & the military industrial complex, similar to the FDA & big pharma. Is it coincidental that as Trump draws down from Syria, Afghanistan & Iraq, that guys like Mattis, Stanley McChrystal & John Allen are all over the papers bad mouthing Trump & talking about coup scenarios?
 

GopherBlood666

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
954
Reaction score
307
Points
63
The generals are pissed because Trump's reluctance to enter more foreign wars is cutting into their pocket books. The endless wars were supplying nice cash flow with the cuts they get from the defense contractors. MIC is huge business that feeds a lot mouths and Trump is taking away their food. Beware the candidate endorsed by money corrupt generals, they like war mongers. I'm late to this thread so I'd just like to add that Mattis is a traitor to the country and was openly surveying people he could recruit to overthrow the president. You don't have to support the president to know that is wrong and completely corrupt. I am relieved when general Millie came out to state the military is going to remain apolitical through the election process as they should.
 

Wally

Active member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
891
Reaction score
221
Points
43
I would like to believe the generals are above this, but if I take your word then why isn't Trump advocating cutting the military budget? He wants to spend more therefore to me it means Trump is part of the problem. We spend way to much on military, keep the nukes ready and realistically who can or would touch us?
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,573
Reaction score
1,298
Points
113
Just when I think you couldn’t have any more of a baby brain, you truly outdo yourself. The question you should be asking is in what situation is regime change in Syria helpful to the USA?

Journalists should have an adversarial relationship to power, particularly when it comes to imperialist measures. God forbid the media hadn’t served as propagandist lapdogs during the lead up to the Iraq war, maybe about 1 million lives would’ve been saved.
The media are nothing more than branches of the intel community at this point. Iraq is a good example for the press acting as cheerleaders for war, but so too were our attacks on Libya, & Syria. These so-called journalists spent untold ink convincing us that removing Ghaddafi for a bombing 30 years earlier was perfectly reasonable & had the left completely behind regime change in Syria based on the familiar tune that Assad was "an evil dictator" who was "gassing his own people". These same so-called journalists pushed the false narrative that if Trump drew down troops in Syria, that Turkey would commit genocide against the Kurds, which never happened. As soon as Trump mentioned drawing down in Afghanistan, they pushed the unconfirmed "Russia is poaying the Taliban to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan" story. Now that Trump announced he's drawing down troops in Iraq, you can set your watch to a new narrative coming that demands we stay in Iraq as well.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,573
Reaction score
1,298
Points
113
I would like to believe the generals are above this, but if I take your word then why isn't Trump advocating cutting the military budget? He wants to spend more therefore to me it means Trump is part of the problem. We spend way to much on military, keep the nukes ready and realistically who can or would touch us?
I have no problem with having a strong, well funded military. Especially after it fell behind & needed to be rebuilt. I do have a problem with that military being used to topple foreign countries that didn't attack or threaten us, and to run never ending nation-building operations.

You don't have to like Trump, but his record on war & occupation is pretty damn good compared to any other POTUS in the past 30 years. We defeated ISIS as a military army, we drew down our troops in Syria, Afghanistan and are committed to drawing down in Iraq. He threw a wet blanket on North Korean tensions for most of his tenure & he's got the Middle East in the most peaceful position it's seen in decades. This issue is very important to me. I was hopeful Obama would do something like this after Bush, but he did the opposite. Credit to Trump, where credit is due.
 

Wally

Active member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
891
Reaction score
221
Points
43
I have no problem with having a strong, well funded military. Especially after it fell behind & needed to be rebuilt. I do have a problem with that military being used to topple foreign countries that didn't attack or threaten us, and to run never ending nation-building operations.

You don't have to like Trump, but his record on war & occupation is pretty damn good compared to any other POTUS in the past 30 years. We defeated ISIS as a military army, we drew down our troops in Syria, Afghanistan and are committed to drawing down in Iraq. He threw a wet blanket on North Korean tensions for most of his tenure & he's got the Middle East in the most peaceful position it's seen in decades. This issue is very important to me. I was hopeful Obama would do something like this after Bush, but he did the opposite. Credit to Trump, where credit is due.
You don't fund your military like we do and not use them, that is stupid.

Hh
 

USAF

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
1,426
Reaction score
1,164
Points
113
Trumpanistas now turn on the military. Have you no shame, at long last?
 
Top Bottom