I think this forum has jumped the shark

[flockofseagulls104]

All the leftists have is criticisms, insults and complaints about Trump. It is honestly boring, incessantly stupid and childish and I have no interest in addressing any of it.

[silverscreenselect]

All the leftists have is criticisms, insults and complaints about Trump. It is honestly boring, incessantly stupid and childish and I have no interest in addressing any of it.

Translation: Trump has been acting like such a crazy idiot lately that not even Flock can think of ways to explain or justify what he's done.

[kroxquo]

All the leftists have is criticisms, insults and complaints about Trump. It is honestly boring, incessantly stupid and childish and I have no interest in addressing any of it.

If you can give me anything positive that has come out of this Presidency so far, I'll be happy to talk about it.

[Weyoun]

I am always happy to talk about how idiotic and insane this murderous administration is.

Most are avoiding talking about this terrible war because deep down they know it’s going badly. The only comment by myself here lately to prompt any kind of substantial response was when I noted that Charlie Kirk was actually a deadbeat bullshit artist who couldn’t even hack college or get a productive job.

[flockofseagulls104]

I appreciate all your confirmation.

[tlynn78]

I appreciate all your confirmation.

100 %

[flockofseagulls104]

All the leftists have is criticisms, insults and complaints about Trump. It is honestly boring, incessantly stupid and childish and I have no interest in addressing any of it.

If you can give me anything positive that has come out of this Presidency so far, I'll be happy to talk about it.

If you can think of any possible defense for defunding homeland security in the midst of a conflict with the world's biggest promoter of terrorism, I'd be interested in hearing it. Can you come up with one without referencing Trump? It should be another doozy.

[Weyoun]

All the leftists have is criticisms, insults and complaints about Trump. It is honestly boring, incessantly stupid and childish and I have no interest in addressing any of it.

If you can give me anything positive that has come out of this Presidency so far, I'll be happy to talk about it.

If you can think of any possible defense for defunding homeland security in the midst of a conflict with the world's biggest promoter of terrorism, I'd be interested in hearing it. Can you come up with one without referencing Trump? It should be another doozy.

One argument would be that, if folks are really so worried about terrorism, they would agree to the Democrats demands where things like cameras and a policy of not shooting American citizens are included.

Another argument would be that this talk of terrorism wouldn’t be needed if we didn’t start such a stupid, needless war

[jarnon]

If you can think of any possible defense for defunding homeland security in the midst of a conflict with the world's biggest promoter of terrorism, I'd be interested in hearing it. Can you come up with one without referencing Trump? It should be another doozy.

The military, FBI, CIA and other departments that actually fight the war and terrorism are fully funded. ICE and CBP still have plenty of money from the Bloated Boondoggle Bill. Some agencies like FEMA and TSA are working without pay, and the Democrats have proposed several legislative fixes.

It bothers me more that FBI and Homeland Security agents have been diverted from terrorism investigations, cybersecurity, and other tasks that actually protect us from Iranian threats, so they can round up as many aliens as possible.

[silverscreenselect]

It bothers me more that FBI and Homeland Security agents have been diverted from terrorism investigations, cybersecurity, and other tasks that actually protect us from Iranian threats, so they can round up as many aliens as possible.

Don't forget all the investigations of Democratic politicians and others Trump doesn't like that the FBI is now engaged in.

[flockofseagulls104]

The military, FBI, CIA and other departments that actually fight the war and terrorism are fully funded. ICE and CBP still have plenty of money from the Bloated Boondoggle Bill. Some agencies like FEMA and TSA are working without pay, and the Democrats have proposed several legislative fixes.

Hmm. If ICE still has plenty of money, then what the fuck are the democrats trying to prove? I thought their beef was that ICE was killing innocent god-fearing protesters all over the place and needed to be stopped?
And regardless how the conflict started, we are in it, aren't we? So shouldn't any decent American do everything possible to protect their fellow citizens: from terrorists threatening our airlines or possible disasters? Or do democrats only care about illegal aliens, as they demonstrated at the SOTU? Or maybe it's that they believe TSA and FEMA are just government work programs that really don't do anything important except spend taxpayer money, so they can be weaponized? Which is it? I guess it will take a few more terrorist attacks in this country before the democrats postpone their 'legislative fixes' and start addressing current reality.

It bothers me more that FBI and Homeland Security agents have been diverted from terrorism investigations, cybersecurity, and other tasks that actually protect us from Iranian threats, so they can round up as many aliens as possible.

It bothered me for several years why biden and those running his administration deliberately let everyone and his brother into this country (an estimated 10 to 20 million) without any vetting at all. And that includes many Iranian 'refugees'. And these are only the ones we know about. So, your complaining about Iranian threats should have been made a few years ago along with those of us who raised that concern.

So you guys really need to get real. No, it wasn't us, or Israel who started this. It was the regime that in 1979 stormed our embassy and took hostages. Then imposed a hardline islamist dictatorship on the Iranian people. And who invented the concept of suicide bombers and unfocused terror and exported this heinous hatred worldwide until we accept these undeniably EVIL acts as 'normal'. And look at the seesaw of how we dealt with this regime, which daily proclaimed 'Death to America', between conservative and democrat administrations. One administration shipped them billions of dollars of cash. Others sanctioned the shit out of them until they were almost ready to collapse. Whose frickin side are you on? No matter who or how this conflict started, we are in it now. Who are you going to support? Us or them? Or does your overiding hatred of trump overrule everything else?

[silverscreenselect]

Whose frickin side are you on? No matter who or how this conflict started, we are in it now. Who are you going to support? Us or them?

What exactly does supporting "us" mean? Sitting around waiting for Trump and/or Hegseth to decide they've done enough winning? We entered this war with no clearly defined objectives and no consulting with Congress. Trump's goals for this war seem to change from day to day. Since we don't know what our goals or strategy are, we can't tell to what extent we are actually "winning" the war. Cartainly, Iran is in a better position today that they were one week ago, with the Strait of Hormuz closed and addiitional economic pressure imposed on the U.S. Opposing the way this war has been conducted does not mean supporting Iran. It means demanding a constitutionally required degree of explanation and accountability from our leadership.

[flockofseagulls104]

Whose frickin side are you on? No matter who or how this conflict started, we are in it now. Who are you going to support? Us or them?

What exactly does supporting "us" mean? Sitting around waiting for Trump and/or Hegseth to decide they've done enough winning? We entered this war with no clearly defined objectives and no consulting with Congress. Trump's goals for this war seem to change from day to day. Since we don't know what our goals or strategy are, we can't tell to what extent we are actually "winning" the war. Cartainly, Iran is in a better position today that they were one week ago, with the Strait of Hormuz closed and addiitional economic pressure imposed on the U.S. Opposing the way this war has been conducted does not mean supporting Iran. It means demanding a constitutionally required degree of explanation and accountability from our leadership.

What does US mean to you?

The objectives and the strategy of this action are clear to anyone with a rational mind.

Consulting with congress? Surely you are shitting me. Half of congress doesn't even know what a woman is and most of those don't even know how to spell Iran, and you want them to be consulted?

Opposing the way this war has been conducted does not mean supporting Iran.

How do you want to conduct it other than generally and vaguely opposing it? (without referencing trump)

[silverscreenselect]

Consulting with congress? Surely you are shitting me. Half of congress doesn't even know what a woman is and most of those don't even know how to spell Iran, and you want them to be consulted?

It's not that I want Congress to be consulted. It's that the Constitution requires them to be consulted and agree before waging war, so we don't have Presidents sending the army off wherever they want on a whim. I'm guessing the Founding Fathers trusted George Washington more than some of the people in Congress but they still put in that requirement as part of the separation of powers doctrine.

At least Bush presented evidence of WMD in Iraq (mistaken as it turned out) and got Congressional approval before we went to war in 2003.

[flockofseagulls104]

Consulting with congress? Surely you are shitting me. Half of congress doesn't even know what a woman is and most of those don't even know how to spell Iran, and you want them to be consulted?

It's not that I want Congress to be consulted. It's that the Constitution requires them to be consulted and agree before waging war, so we don't have Presidents sending the army off wherever they want on a whim. I'm guessing the Founding Fathers trusted George Washington more than some of the people in Congress but they still put in that requirement as part of the separation of powers doctrine.

At least Bush presented evidence of WMD in Iraq (mistaken as it turned out) and got Congressional approval before we went to war in 2003.

Oh, really? When did Obama consult with Congress about his drones?
Anyway, the War Powers Act of 1973 requires the President to notify congress within 48 hours of deploying troops. He did. However, several presidents, including Obama, have committed the miliatary to action without 'consulting' congress. And we ALL know that if congress were consulted, the intended target would receive all the information by way of leaks from multiple sources. So, once again, let's try to be real. I know that's difficult for you.

So again, We are in this situation. What do you want the goal to be? How do you want it to play out? Other than negatively for trump. That's a given.

[kroxquo]

Whose frickin side are you on? No matter who or how this conflict started, we are in it now. Who are you going to support? Us or them?

What exactly does supporting "us" mean? Sitting around waiting for Trump and/or Hegseth to decide they've done enough winning? We entered this war with no clearly defined objectives and no consulting with Congress. Trump's goals for this war seem to change from day to day. Since we don't know what our goals or strategy are, we can't tell to what extent we are actually "winning" the war. Cartainly, Iran is in a better position today that they were one week ago, with the Strait of Hormuz closed and addiitional economic pressure imposed on the U.S. Opposing the way this war has been conducted does not mean supporting Iran. It means demanding a constitutionally required degree of explanation and accountability from our leadership.

What does US mean to you?

The objectives and the strategy of this action are clear to anyone with a rational mind.

Consulting with congress? Surely you are shitting me. Half of congress doesn't even know what a woman is and most of those don't even know how to spell Iran, and you want them to be consulted?

Opposing the way this war has been conducted does not mean supporting Iran.

How do you want to conduct it other than generally and vaguely opposing it? (without referencing trump)

Then could you explain to me what those objectives and strategy are? Because since my mind is not rational, to me, it seems like we are getting involved in an imbroglio of regime change like the ones we got ourselves involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. What is the end game here?

And unfortunately, the framers of the Constitution did not specify that Congress be competent, only that they be consulted on the use of the military. You know - checks and balances, separation of powers - that kind of thing.

[flockofseagulls104]

Then could you explain to me what those objectives and strategy are? Because since my mind is not rational, to me, it seems like we are getting involved in an imbroglio of regime change like the ones we got ourselves involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. What is the end game here?

I think our President, who has been the most open, honest and available President of our lifetime has laid it out very plainly for those who actually listen to what he says. He will not allow Iran to have the ability to threaten us, or anyone else, with nuclear weapons. He was clear on that in his first term, and he successfully isolated the regime financially almost to the point of their collapse, and he helped establish the Abraham Accords with several other middle eastern countries to establish ties with Israel to further isolate Iran. The assholes that ran biden's administration immediately undid the sanctions and ignored the Abraham Accords, and Iran went back to sponsoring terror (including 10/7) and developing nuclear capability.

This term, with Iran being so much closer to their dream of nuclear weapons and the ability to launch them further than ever before, our President took extraordinary action to prevent them from obtaining them. Even then, he tried diplomacy and negotiation. But that didn't work. He told us that they claimed at the start of the negotiations that they had enough nuclear material for 11 bombs. You people like to compare things you don't like or understand to nazi germany. This regime has been proclaiming they want 'Death to America and Israel' for half a century. Trump did the equivelent of reading and understanding Mein Kampf and preventing Hitler from invading Poland.

The objective is crystal clear to anyone that does not have a severe case of TDS. The strategy has, I'm sure, been worked out by the best military minds we have and is in the process of being carried out. And only very stupid military leaders, like the kind relied upon by democrat leaders, are going to tell us exactly what the strategy is, lest the enemy prepare for it. If you are upset that you don't know exactly what they are planning to do, too bad.

I wish we hadn't gone into this at this level. This is very risky, but we live in dangerous times. What other path is there? I believe this is a fight between good and evil. We do not strap bombs on people and direct them to kill as many innocent victims as possible. The people we are in conflict with do. We did not launch missiles at other country's civilian populations at random with no provocation. They did. We did not sponsor hundreds of terrorists to slaughter, rape and mutilate thousands of men, women and children and film and celebrate doing so. They did. They have been telling us and demonstrating for decades what they want to do and showing us they are willing to do it. This has got to stop at some point. Will it end in WWIII? I think it certainly might have whether we did what we are involved in now, or whether we did nothing, like we have been doing for decades.

So, again I ask you. We are in this situation whether anyone likes it or not. Who do you want to win this conflict, and what are you willing to do to help achieve that?

The possible end-game is a Free Iran, where the citizens can be free of a repressive, brutal government, and a peaceful middle east. And the World can be free of threats from radical terror.

Got it?

[silverscreenselect]

Trump has produced no evidence to the American public or to Congress that Iran is anywhere near being able to make a nuclear weapon. All we have are bald assertions from a man who lies constantly. Saying that if you don't support this war, you're supporting Iran is ridiculous. It's like the Vietnam War, where those who advocated getting our troops out of Vietnam were not "supporting" the North Vietnamese.

Trump is now saying that the war will end when "I can feel it in my bones." He also said in an interview with NBC News: "We totally demolished Kharg Island, but we may hit it a few more times just for fun.” Most of us would like something a little clearer to gauge what progress we are making towards the end of the war.

[Weyoun]

I would add, and this is an actual quote from Trump, that “we know where most of them are” regarding these supposed sleeper cells. He did blame Biden for anything that bad was going to happen anyway, but this begs the question. If they know where these folks are, why are they going after roofers and nannies?

[flockofseagulls104]

Trump has produced no evidence to the American public or to Congress that Iran is anywhere near being able to make a nuclear weapon. All we have are bald assertions from a man who lies constantly. Saying that if you don't support this war, you're supporting Iran is ridiculous. It's like the Vietnam War, where those who advocated getting our troops out of Vietnam were not "supporting" the North Vietnamese.

Trump is now saying that the war will end when "I can feel it in my bones." He also said in an interview with NBC News: "We totally demolished Kharg Island, but we may hit it a few more times just for fun.” Most of us would like something a little clearer to gauge what progress we are making towards the end of the war.

TDS on parade.
Whatcha gonna do? That's the question you're avoiding. Keep undermining and making unsubstantiated accusations against trump? Probably. That's ALL you have been doing for years.

[silverscreenselect]

Keep undermining and making unsubstantiated accusations against trump?

You have it exactly backwards. The onus is on the President of the United States to justify military action, not because he feels it in his bones, but for demonstrable valid reasons. Certainly, preventing Iran from getting a nuclear bomb is a valid goal, but he's presented no evidence there was an imminent danger of that beyond self-serving claims. Not to the American people and not to Congress, which has the Constitutional responsibility to go to war. He could easily have given Congressional leaders a classified briefing about the Iranian nuclear capabilities, but he chose not to do so. He also chose (or more exactly Bibi chose and he went along as he usually does) when and where he attacked.

Regardless of whether Trump had valid justification for the attack, the fact is that he and Hegseth have now made a total mess out of it, and we're paying the price at the gas pump and in our sinking world popularity. Bombing girls schools doesn't earn you international friends. Things went bad for the US in the months after Pearl Harbor, but the American public did not sour on the war because we had a public strategy that we were following. Trump has no strategy he's revealed to the public or any way of determining how close we are to any goals other than statements about his bones. The Constitution does not give Trump a blank check to wage this war whenever, however, and for as long as he wants.

What's now clear is that Trump's pre-war "strategy" was to try to pull off another Venezuela and eliminate the top leadership so they would be replaced by more pliable people willing to end the war within days on Trump's terms. We used negotiations as a ploy to stall for time until our bombers were fully in place (and perhaps to fool the Iranians into thinking we were serious about the negotiations). Then we bombed targets where we thought the leadership would be. We wound up replacing an 86 year old ailing ruler with a more-hardline son and group of new leaders more inclined on revenge than before. You can see the result of what Trump has done, especially every time you go to a gas station.

[Weyoun]

Of course, the true TDS crowd are the folks who defend him no matter what he does.

Look at this way. Aside from the obvious mess that he’s created. (To me, the best part is where he told the British Navy to go fuck themselves, and now he’s begging for their help.). But there was really zero preparation. He’s talking about trying to attack Cuba at the same time, and he just attacked Venezuela. This is no kind of planning.

If he was actually worried about our oil and gas supply, he would’ve done things to help build it up and diversify it going in. That might even have required us waiting another year before doing this foolishness, but then it would be less of a shock.

But he’s gone out of his way to cut any kind of renewable energy.

And let’s talk about the Ukraine thing. Ukraine has actually offered to give us help regarding drones, since they’ve been dealing with them for four years. Now has he told them no, but he has Russian oil back on the market, even though Russia is helping Iran kill American soldiers!

I think the up shot is that he’s demented and stupid and he’s stuck in a lot of thinking circa 1980. But if he was trying to betray the United States and commit treason, he’d be doing a great job of it right now.

I *think* that whitefailure should explain why anything that has happened so far actually makes some kind of sense.

[flockofseagulls104]

Keep undermining and making unsubstantiated accusations against trump?

You have it exactly backwards. The onus is on the President of the United States to justify military action, not because he feels it in his bones, but for demonstrable valid reasons. Certainly, preventing Iran from getting a nuclear bomb is a valid goal, but he's presented no evidence there was an imminent danger of that beyond self-serving claims. Not to the American people and not to Congress, which has the Constitutional responsibility to go to war. He could easily have given Congressional leaders a classified briefing about the Iranian nuclear capabilities, but he chose not to do so. He also chose (or more exactly Bibi chose and he went along as he usually does) when and where he attacked.

Regardless of whether Trump had valid justification for the attack, the fact is that he and Hegseth have now made a total mess out of it, and we're paying the price at the gas pump and in our sinking world popularity. Bombing girls schools doesn't earn you international friends. Things went bad for the US in the months after Pearl Harbor, but the American public did not sour on the war because we had a public strategy that we were following. Trump has no strategy he's revealed to the public or any way of determining how close we are to any goals other than statements about his bones. The Constitution does not give Trump a blank check to wage this war whenever, however, and for as long as he wants.

What's now clear is that Trump's pre-war "strategy" was to try to pull off another Venezuela and eliminate the top leadership so they would be replaced by more pliable people willing to end the war within days on Trump's terms. We used negotiations as a ploy to stall for time until our bombers were fully in place (and perhaps to fool the Iranians into thinking we were serious about the negotiations). Then we bombed targets where we thought the leadership would be. We wound up replacing an 86 year old ailing ruler with a more-hardline son and group of new leaders more inclined on revenge than before. You can see the result of what Trump has done, especially every time you go to a gas station.

I'll ask once again. Whatcha gonna do? Support the US or support Iran? At the point we find ourselves in, it has to be either/or. Spare me the screeds about how trump and hegseth screwed up and started this, like you know more than they do. Many, many people disagree with you. But maybe they did, maybe they didn't. IT DOESN'T MATTER at this point. We are where we are. As far as I can see, judging from the above rant and your history, your choice will be that you will do anything and everything that will demonize and hurt Trump. And if that hurts the US and helps Iran, so be it.

Prove me wrong.

[Weyoun]

Keep undermining and making unsubstantiated accusations against trump?

You have it exactly backwards. The onus is on the President of the United States to justify military action, not because he feels it in his bones, but for demonstrable valid reasons. Certainly, preventing Iran from getting a nuclear bomb is a valid goal, but he's presented no evidence there was an imminent danger of that beyond self-serving claims. Not to the American people and not to Congress, which has the Constitutional responsibility to go to war. He could easily have given Congressional leaders a classified briefing about the Iranian nuclear capabilities, but he chose not to do so. He also chose (or more exactly Bibi chose and he went along as he usually does) when and where he attacked.

Regardless of whether Trump had valid justification for the attack, the fact is that he and Hegseth have now made a total mess out of it, and we're paying the price at the gas pump and in our sinking world popularity. Bombing girls schools doesn't earn you international friends. Things went bad for the US in the months after Pearl Harbor, but the American public did not sour on the war because we had a public strategy that we were following. Trump has no strategy he's revealed to the public or any way of determining how close we are to any goals other than statements about his bones. The Constitution does not give Trump a blank check to wage this war whenever, however, and for as long as he wants.

What's now clear is that Trump's pre-war "strategy" was to try to pull off another Venezuela and eliminate the top leadership so they would be replaced by more pliable people willing to end the war within days on Trump's terms. We used negotiations as a ploy to stall for time until our bombers were fully in place (and perhaps to fool the Iranians into thinking we were serious about the negotiations). Then we bombed targets where we thought the leadership would be. We wound up replacing an 86 year old ailing ruler with a more-hardline son and group of new leaders more inclined on revenge than before. You can see the result of what Trump has done, especially every time you go to a gas station.

I'll ask once again. Whatcha gonna do? Support the US or support Iran? At the point we find ourselves in, it has to be either/or. Spare me the screeds about how trump and hegseth screwed up and started this, like you know more than they do. Many, many people disagree with you. But maybe they did, maybe they didn't. IT DOESN'T MATTER at this point. We are where we are. As far as I can see, judging from the above rant and your history, your choice will be that you will do anything and everything that will demonize and hurt Trump. And if that hurts the US and helps Iran, so be it.

Prove me wrong.

What a false equivalence.

I think we’re playing a very dangerous game here. I don’t want any more American soldiers to die for reasons that have never been made clear to us. I’m also worried that our insane leadership actually would do something stupid, like nuclear weapons, which would make everything worse. I don’t want Iran to “win” but I feel we placed ourselves in an embarrassing, difficult to extricate situation. If we were to listen to your advice, we would be landing huge number of troops in Iran and killing potentially millions of people.

I’ve actually thought about the best case scenario, and it would be Trump having a heart attack and Vance strolling in and bringing us back from the brink. I am not “rooting” for that either, but I also don’t see any good option at this point. And the fact there are no good options is entirely the fault of Donald Trump.

[flockofseagulls104]

You have it exactly backwards. The onus is on the President of the United States to justify military action, not because he feels it in his bones, but for demonstrable valid reasons. Certainly, preventing Iran from getting a nuclear bomb is a valid goal, but he's presented no evidence there was an imminent danger of that beyond self-serving claims. Not to the American people and not to Congress, which has the Constitutional responsibility to go to war. He could easily have given Congressional leaders a classified briefing about the Iranian nuclear capabilities, but he chose not to do so. He also chose (or more exactly Bibi chose and he went along as he usually does) when and where he attacked.

Regardless of whether Trump had valid justification for the attack, the fact is that he and Hegseth have now made a total mess out of it, and we're paying the price at the gas pump and in our sinking world popularity. Bombing girls schools doesn't earn you international friends. Things went bad for the US in the months after Pearl Harbor, but the American public did not sour on the war because we had a public strategy that we were following. Trump has no strategy he's revealed to the public or any way of determining how close we are to any goals other than statements about his bones. The Constitution does not give Trump a blank check to wage this war whenever, however, and for as long as he wants.

What's now clear is that Trump's pre-war "strategy" was to try to pull off another Venezuela and eliminate the top leadership so they would be replaced by more pliable people willing to end the war within days on Trump's terms. We used negotiations as a ploy to stall for time until our bombers were fully in place (and perhaps to fool the Iranians into thinking we were serious about the negotiations). Then we bombed targets where we thought the leadership would be. We wound up replacing an 86 year old ailing ruler with a more-hardline son and group of new leaders more inclined on revenge than before. You can see the result of what Trump has done, especially every time you go to a gas station.

I'll ask once again. Whatcha gonna do? Support the US or support Iran? At the point we find ourselves in, it has to be either/or. Spare me the screeds about how trump and hegseth screwed up and started this, like you know more than they do. Many, many people disagree with you. But maybe they did, maybe they didn't. IT DOESN'T MATTER at this point. We are where we are. As far as I can see, judging from the above rant and your history, your choice will be that you will do anything and everything that will demonize and hurt Trump. And if that hurts the US and helps Iran, so be it.

Prove me wrong.

What a false equivalence.

I think we’re playing a very dangerous game here. I don’t want any more American soldiers to die for reasons that have never been made clear to us. I’m also worried that our insane leadership actually would do something stupid, like nuclear weapons, which would make everything worse. I don’t want Iran to “win” but I feel we placed ourselves in an embarrassing, difficult to extricate situation. If we were to listen to your advice, we would be landing huge number of troops in Iran and killing potentially millions of people.

I’ve actually thought about the best case scenario, and it would be Trump having a heart attack and Vance strolling in and bringing us back from the brink. I am not “rooting” for that either, but I also don’t see any good option at this point. And the fact there are no good options is entirely the fault of Donald Trump.

Just so you know: I ain't asking you anything. You are a vulgar cartoon. I couldn't care less what you think.