I believed you called it "flexibility" a few posts back. Couldn't he go to congress for the authorization and then make the decision to deploy.
Remember what you linked us to?
General Mattis
- Thread starter Marine03
- Start date
Remember what you linked us to?
Yep... that's my interpretation from the little o read. However, not sure it applies without consent from states and/or Congress.
Cool, because there was nothing specific in Trumps statement that contradicted that. Continue with your semantic argument.
I think there is gray area on this one.
Blocking an Interstate? First, that's dumb. If cars and trucks are on it you might get killed. Not even on purpose, dumbasses looking at their phone or using Tesla's "autopilot" the wrong way. Also I have a problem with delaying interstate commerce.
The street in front of city hall? Who cares? That's as appropriate a place to protest as it gets. Easy to set up a detour as well. Louisville closed off the area where City Hall, LMPD HQ's, the courthouse, that stuff is. The perfect place to march and protest. I had no problem doing a loop around the protest area downtown.
"I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem..."....of course, that line was delivered after he recommended states allow the National Guard into their states.. If they didn't? Well, the above statement is pretty clear. You can always review the video I linked a few posts back. Anyway, governors and many current and ex-military didn't have trouble understanding the statement. Hell, even the secretary of defense came out to proclaim using military was a bad idea after Trump's little dictator-esque tirade.
so he was asking to let the guard in...but was directing the active military invade without permission. Got it.
Well, the fact is the guy lies about everything...so there was never really much to worry about as far as him pulling the trigger...but there's no confusion about what he said....and since active military had been deployed to DC...(but not inserted)....I guess we shouldn't assume that he meant National Guard. Regardless, the statement was alarming enough for Mattis, Kelly, Allen and a host of other Generals to comment...as well as the Secretary of Defense.
Good point.... everyone that's spoken out against Trump has an agenda - bastards.
I think it’s a stretch for you to talk about trump lying after 2 1/2 years of the Democratic Party and the liberal press lying to you about the Russian collusion story. There’s a whole Lotta lies there you can talk about it but those don’t seem to bother you. And remember, Durham knows!
I won't and haven't argued the left hasn't lied or done some stupid stuff.....but nothing at the level we've seen from Trump.
"Collusion"...what does that mean? If one party asks a 2nd party to do something.... and the 2nd party complies/executes the request...would that be "collusion"? Perhaps you can enlighten me. I'm having a difficult time understanding how when Trump asks, "Russia, if you're listening....". Then Russia hacks the Dem emails a few hours later.
swamp rats. amazing how these libs love war mongers and other republicans if they come out against trump.
These libs support the folks that have been running things for decades....you know the folks that have made this such a racist crappy country.
good lord. please bring something better than a joke about recent news headlines that was made during a public debate (you look like an idiot doing that). maybe something like DNC paying for Russian disinformation through foreign intermediaries to steal an election or to overthrow a duly elected President.
So what about the decades old problem of systemic racism. That was on their watch.
Ok, so let's go back decades and the systemic racism. Let's say DJT is gone tomorrow or was never elected. Then, what and how do you explain?
At least under Trump black employment up and black wages up.
Funded the Historical Black Colleges.
3.5 years. The problem goes on way before Trump. I am willing to have the conversation with anybody that wants to have open and direct dialogue. But, not emotional or irrational based logic like let's not fund police departments. Anarchy is not a viable solution. Laws and enforcement of such laws are necessary in a civilized society.
Not sure what "recent news headlines" you're referring to. If it's the "Russia are you listening" quote....that was 2016 - nearly four-years-ago, and it was during a press conference.
Several respected intel organizations concede the Russians participated in the election on behalf of Trump. Are you stating that wasn't the case?
Durham knows about the DNC hiring firms and British spies and what not - I leave that discussion to Marc22.
Trying to figure out if the above response is targeted to me....it's a bit confusing. But seriously, PLEASE... feel free to ignore me.
Lovin' the bit how news four years ago was "recent" four years ago. That's pure gold right there.
And Trump was "joking" when he said "Russia if you're listening"? Gotta admit...not many "jokes" result with that kind of action/response.
And we have some new info with Clapper and Brennan...don't believe we've mentioned them before....but I'll go with whatever you're thinking here....why discuss this BS further.
Are you arguing against someone who said that systemic racism did exist except under the liar in chief? If you are, name the people you're arguing against....
Fact is, the liar in chief is a racist, liar, cheat, and coward. And stupid.
Both were going up long before the liar in chief was elected.
I am saying problems in the black community existed before Trump and he could be gone and the problems in places like Chicago still exist. Even with a black President.
There's a huge difference between there BEING systemic racism and brandishing it like the liar in chief does.
Honestly, you are slow enough that I don't think I need to insult you.
You are confused that a 2016 quote about news events of that time was a quote about recent news. I can't help you anymore than that. You can just stay confused.
"Russia if you're listening"?? gee wiz. Mueller should have hired you and maybe they would have got Trump. How did they miss that nugget? good stuff.
You referred to "respected intelligence agencies", and I respond about the former Director of National Intelligence and the former Director of the CIA and you act like that is out of left field? gee whiz you could loo smarter if you just made like Greed and called everyone a liar and an idiot.
I thought you were going to ignore me.
Still lovin' this whole explanation of a quote four years ago was recent four years ago. You really need to let that rest. Don't believe there's any way for you to dig yourself out of that.
And I would be careful tossing around "you're embarrassing yourself" after reading that stupid shit.
Are you really saying no Trump-led administration concluded there was Russian interference? Lots of Trump appointed cabinet members certainly have stated that's the case.
Have yourself a wonderful day.
you have a good day as well.
your words "Not sure what "recent news headlines" you're referring to.
"
If it's the "Russia are you listening" quote....that was 2016 - nearly four-years-ago" maybe you should study on it for the night. maybe look up the definition of recent. also, please focus on when the quote was made and what would be recent at that time. you can do it.
Good grief - give it a rest. Who needs to "study on" deciphering your failed attempts at English. Here's what you said:
That sentence is truly pathetic. And after concocting that line of unintelligible dung, you ramble on about someone else looking idiotic.
Even though I assume (hope) you're attempting to amuse yourself via this poor attempt at trolling, who, besides you, would understand the context of "recent" in the above post?
OK..... I'll assist you in writing a post this one time. A more effective way to communicate what you were attempting to say would be, "please bring something better than a four-year-old comment where Trump was responding, in jest, to a headline from a previous debate."
The reader immediately recognizes you understand Trump's statement is four-years-old. Therefore, we have a frame of reference from which your comments are based. While "recent" could work now that the timing has been established, it's a poor term for this post IMO. Recent means: 1a : having lately come into existence : new, fresh. b : of or relating to a time not long past. It doesn't apply to four-year-old political statements. Therefore, you should dump it and find another way to express your thoughts - "previous" is good enough for our needs here.
I hope this was helpful - have a nice day!
Last edited:
dude we both agreed the quote (that you entered into the discussion)was from 2016 so it is vexing to me that you can't grasp "recent" when discussing what the quote was about. So you are saying my sentence about your quote from 2016 made you think the quote was about recent 2020 news?? hilarious.
sure, that sentence could have been written better but your comprehension could be better too.
oh and we already have a spell checker and grammar guy here so...…..
sure, that sentence could have been written better but your comprehension could be better too.
oh and we already have a spell checker and grammar guy here so...…..
My comments weren't grammar or spell checking based - it's about basic communication of a complete thought.
I'll lay it out more clearly the next time I engage you, which hopefully won't be for a long while. Like I said, as we discussed a 2016 quote provided by you, I guess I just didn't realize that someone could be so slow that they could be confused about what "recent news" means when referring to what the 2016 quote was about. I can see how someone with extremely low intellect might think that reference would be about 2020 news.
