Trump shits all over the troops again

[Bullneck 19516]

On 9/9/2020 at 12:41 PM, RomaVicta said:

Sheeit clearly counts on no one reading the piece or his links. Again, irony deafness isn't funny.

He posted in response to me and I didn't bother clicking on any of that shit.  

I want him to present his own arguments, not just throwing up a bunch of chaff.

He's either a GRU or Anastasis sock.  He comes out of nowhere completely plugged into the thread spouting bullshit he doesn't want his marquee associated with.  Fucking moron.

[WhatTheBuck 28928]

On September 9, 2020 at 12:46 PM, hayden_horn said:

i disagree. 

he's a trump supporter. engaging with him might shed some light into the way these people think. it's such a weird mindset. it's not uniquely american either. just had a meeting with my boss in the uk when we spoke about how our otherwise intelligent family members support trump/brexit/things that don't make sense outside a hive mind.

attacking a magazine article's sourcing makes perfect sense to these people. oh they "aren't defending trump" but they sure as fuck attack all criticism of trump with some bullshit purity test to which they do not even hold trump. it's madness.

Engaging trolls doesn't have the effect you think it does. You dignify their bullshit with your response as though it merits consideration. You're just getting trolled and falling for it. The troll wins. Maybe they really believe the earth is flat, maybe they're just saying it's flat to get a rise out of you. It doesn't matter. Why waste your time trying to explain to a troll that the earth is round? You're not defending against anyone mistakenly believing the earth is flat because some troll says it is. You're just getting suckered by a troll. 

Edited September 12, 2020 by WhatTheBuck

[Fudge Nuggets 19453]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

Links, please.

Not the citing of the Atlantic, but people going on the record.

 

I'm ready to be outraged.  Just need proof.

Apparently there are four sources that wish to remain anonymous that corroborate it.  Based on dotard's previous comments about combat veterans why would I assume those four sources are lying?  Based on the way dotard fires up his base of absolute maniacs why would I blame those four sources for wishing to remain anonymous?  I'm sorry you support a man that would shit all over your own son for a couple of votes if it was convenient for him.  I would be ashamed.  But you do you.

Edited September 12, 2020 by Fudge Nuggets

[Fudge Nuggets 19453]

2 hours ago, slorch said:

You cannot answer it either.

The truth or a direct quote/ someone credibly on the record  would be a great start.

Apparently there are four sources that wish to remain anonymous that corroborate it.  Based on dotard's previous comments about combat veterans why would I assume those four sources are lying?  Based on the way dotard fires up his base of absolute maniacs why would I blame those four sources for wishing to remain anonymous?  I'm sorry you support a man that would shit all over your own son for a couple of votes if it was convenient for him.  I would be ashamed.  But you do you.

Edited September 12, 2020 by Fudge Nuggets

[Fudge Nuggets 19453]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

Links?  Not reporters.  People who were there.

Apparently there are four sources that wish to remain anonymous that corroborate it.  Based on dotard's previous comments about combat veterans why would I assume those four sources are lying?  Based on the way dotard fires up his base of absolute maniacs why would I blame those four sources for wishing to remain anonymous?  I'm sorry you support a man that would shit all over your own son for a couple of votes if it was convenient for him.  I would be ashamed.  But you do you.

[Fudge Nuggets 19453]

I hope your son disowns your sorry fucking ass.

[WhatTheBuck 28928]

On September 9, 2020 at 1:27 PM, jimmyjazz said:

Ah, so sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit is truly going with the angle that a media outlet which actually does the right thing and retracts factual errors is bad, but those that never submit retractions are obviously pure and true.  Got it.

As surely as the Clintons killed Vince Foster and Seth Rich. And probably Jeffrey Epstein too!

[WhatTheBuck 28928]

On September 10, 2020 at 3:58 PM, bolverk said:

Does anyone have a handy timeline of Trump's scandals? I'd love to see one in the form of a Gantt chart showing the lifecycle of each.

We've forgotten more corrupt acts committed by the Trump administration than the most corrupt previous administration, whoever that was, ever committed. 

[TexArcher 39061]

1 hour ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

The Slorch types are going to be the first people with their heads shaved.  

A lot them are already there.

[WhatTheBuck 28928]

4 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

So you’re saying sheeeit suuuucks?

He's a disgrace to a great character in a great tv show, one of the greatest of all time. But at least it's an allusion to a thoroughly corrupt character, which is fitting. It's like Johnny Sack taking the name of an idiot mobster. 

Edited September 12, 2020 by WhatTheBuck

[WhatTheBuck 28928]

2 hours ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Well if you don’t vote for trump then ok.  If you don’t vote for the alternative then you might as well stick a rotten value Costco fish stick up your ass.

Is it okay if I do both?

Dont judge me. 

[WhatTheBuck 28928]

2 hours ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

I’m not voting for trump either, but jeezuz you guys are mean and it makes my panties waddie.  

And so I'm voting for Trump!

(Sorry, didn't mean to go full Rimbo here. I've just had a few belts and felt a need to reply to some of these posts.)

Edited September 12, 2020 by WhatTheBuck

[We’reTexas 1477]

2 hours ago, slorch said:

IDK if it's true or not.  neither do you.  should be easy as fuck to prove.  Link to the Mccain thing is in this thread.  I said it was fucked up that he said it.  Your last question is exactly why I have an issue with it.  I don't care how the left characterizes the dude.  It's always a bloodbath on that front.

 

Link to anyone vouching for the validity of this accusation?

Did it seriously take Mark Felt to die for you to believe Watergate?

[bolverk 30320]

2 hours ago, slorch said:

Link to anyone vouching for the validity of this accusation?

So far as I know, no one has come forth as a public first-hand source. The closest that I'm aware of is from a couple of days ago in the NYTimes in a story about Kelly. Please, read the red statements and pay particular attention to the careful wording of the underlined portions. And, yes, I readily admit that these are second-hand accounts -- on record -- stating the reasons for Kelly's silence.

Again, we only have these accounts, but the implication is that he doesn't want to speak out against a sitting president which appears to imply that he has something to speak out about that could hurt Trump.

Quote

 

John Kelly, at Center of Report on Trump Disparaging U.S. Soldiers, Keeps Silent
The former chief of staff’s public reticence has frustrated groups that are hoping that he will publicly endorse Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic presidential nominee.

WASHINGTON — John F. Kelly left the White House barely on speaking terms with President Trump. In the months since, Mr. Kelly, a retired four-star general and former White House chief of staff, has stayed mostly silent as other senior military figures have publicly and harshly criticized the president.

Much to the consternation of friends and associates who have been pushing him to speak out, Mr. Kelly continued his silence on Friday about a report in The Atlantic that the president had privately referred to American troops killed in combat as “losers” and “suckers.”

Mr. Kelly refused on-the-record interview requests about his recollection of comments Mr. Trump had reportedly made when Mr. Kelly was with him on a 2018 trip to France. According to the report, the president said that he had decided against visiting a cemetery for American soldiers killed in World War I because “it’s filled with losers,” and that Marines slain in combat at Belleau Wood were “suckers” for getting killed.

The article also reported that during a 2017 visit to Arlington National Cemetery, Mr. Trump and Mr. Kelly stopped to pay respects at the grave of Mr. Kelly’s son, Second Lt. Robert Kelly, a Marine who was killed at age 29 in Afghanistan in 2010.

“I don’t get it. What was in it for them?” the magazine reported that Mr. Trump had said to Mr. Kelly about his son’s service and sacrifice.

Mr. Kelly’s decision to stay publicly silent since he left the West Wing at the end of 2018 has frustrated groups like Republican Voters Against Trump, which has been actively pursuing him in hopes of encouraging him to publicly endorse former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic presidential nominee.

William Kristol, a prominent Never Trump conservative helping to run the Republican group against Mr. Trump, said the pitch to Mr. Kelly was that he should not “say a word about private conversations with the president, just give us your judgment.”

But Mr. Kelly, who served for more than 40 years in the Marines, has told associates that a retired four-star general should not come out against a sitting president in the heat of a political campaign, even though former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, another retired four-star Marine general, publicly criticized Mr. Trump in June for lacking “mature leadership” and trying to divide rather than unite the country.

“He wants to avoid taking a position that might be perceived as political,” said Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a retired four-star Marine Corps general and a close friend of Mr. Kelly, who had not spoken to him since the publication of the Atlantic article. “I also think he takes to heart the commitment to confidentiality in matters related to their interaction with the president.”

Mr. Kelly’s silence did not save him from the president’s wrath.

“This man was totally exhausted,” Mr. Trump said of Mr. Kelly at a news conference on Friday. “He wasn’t even able to function in the last number of months.”

In the wake of The Atlantic’s report, the pressure on Mr. Kelly has been building.

“There is nothing noble about choosing loyalty to a former boss over fidelity to his oath to support and defend a Constitution that is under siege by that same boss,” said Philippe Reines, a former top adviser to Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Reines was working for Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state and praised Mr. Kelly, then the senior military aide to Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, for swiftly finding a plane to transport the bodies of the four Americans who died in the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, from a ceremony at Joint Base Andrews to Dover Air Force Base.

Mr. Kelly was also on the advisory board of Mr. Reines’s former consulting company, Beacon Global Strategies. “If his and others’ silence is based on assuming Trump will lose without their having to speak out, well, we’ve seen that movie before,” Mr. Reines said. “If Trump is re-elected, their current silence will have played a big part.”

Friends and associates of Mr. Kelly said that his calculation about whether to speak out was also intertwined with publicly revisiting his son’s death.

“He was very private about the loss of his son, and we as his staff fully respected that,” said Elizabeth Neumann, who was deputy chief of staff to Mr. Kelly when he was secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. “This is not the type of thing he wants politicized and doesn’t feel like it’s the right thing to speak about.”

Mr. Kelly, who served three tours in Iraq during some of the worst violence there, later became chief military aide, a highly influential position, to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates; he continued in the position under Mr. Panetta. Mr. Kelly went on to become the commander of United States Southern Command, which oversees all American military operations in Central and South America.

Mr. Kelly, who is the most senior U.S. military officer to lose a son or daughter in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, took a hard line on immigration at the Department of Homeland Security, which pleased Mr. Trump.

Mr. Kelly moved on to the White House as Mr. Trump’s second chief of staff, a tenure that was characterized by bouts of private anger that he kept masked behind public defenses of the president.

In October, Mr. Kelly said at a conference that he felt “bad that I left,” implying that if he had stayed at the White House, he could have fended off the president’s impeachment late last year. White House officials have made it clear they have no regrets about the breakup.

“I worked with John Kelly, and he was totally unequipped to handle the genius of our great president,” Stephanie Grisham, the former White House press secretary, said of Mr. Kelly at the time.

In an interview in June, Mr. Kelly said that he “agreed” with Mr. Mattis’s warning about the president. But he left the onus for the condemnation on Mr. Mattis. “For him to do that,” Mr. Kelly said, “tells you where he is relative to the concern he has for our country.”

 

Edited September 12, 2020 by bolverk

[RomaVicta 30565]

3 hours ago, slorch said:

I just want links to the people corroboration the act, not the stupid assed story.

Is that too much to ask  in today's world of fucked up reporting?  I believe it is.   None of the anti-Trumpsters will go on the record?   Weird.

You're just rephrasing the bald assertion about reputable outlets being "fake news." You've embraced that as a premise. You have nothing to support the premise other than that these outlets occasionally make errors and have to retract as one would expect from any human endeavor.

Before you demand your narrowly defined proof, you must prove your case that Atlantic or any other reputable outlets are in the business of willfully distorting facts and pushing lies. Your will to believe that is not proof.

Again, prove your premise. You've skipped a step. Trump inventing the notion of Fake News is not any kind of foundation for your assumption. He's a known liar.

Again, irony deafness is big with what is left of the GOP.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

How much further down the path and more evidence do people need? He's got the AG, he's got the Courts, he is crapping on the troops to promote division within especially since he has the police on his side. (Consider them his 'new and improved' i.e. loyal military). The Atlantic is not telling us anything that we don't already know.
 

Quote

 

6) Fascists begin to develop and refine their cult of identity in anticipation of re-election if the aforementioned economic spending is progressing well. They pursue activities such as the 1936 Berlin Olympics to increase their prestige and citizens’ feelings of glory.

7) The big test for a fascist’s staying power is their first re-election. Historically, most successful fascist leaders are patient, waiting to consolidate real power until after they have been re-elected by a majority of voters. People, ignoring the lessons of history, regularly “give him a chance” and fall for this gambit. The fascist will quietly martial their base of extreme support to intimidate voters in order to increase their chances of re-election. In recent years, we saw this pattern with the current Presidents of Turkey and Russia when they were first re-elected a decade ago.

8 )Once re-elected, fascist leaders then begin more rapidly tightening their grip on the institutions of power and removing said institutions’ ability to check the leader. The most important piece of this puzzle is the judiciary. In Germany, by 1938, Hitler had essentially removed the independent German judiciary. In Russia, Putin, who was first elected in 1999, had a rubber stamp justice system by the mid-2000s. The President of Turkey’s progress was slower, primarily because of Turkey’s interventionist military, but in staving off a coup this summer, appears to have now fully achieved this goal. In the US, stacking the Supreme Court with 2-3 loyalists to tip its balance and pairing them with 100+ loyal federal judges would likely be enough, numbers that are typically achieved in the second term of a presidency.

*--Paul Grossinger

He may not have the economy, but Trump has the believers focused on how much better things will be after Nov. 3.

Edited September 12, 2020 by Mrs Whiggins

[Sawbonz 28215]

11 hours ago, slorch said:

corroboration

[Sawbonz 28215]

39 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

 

How much further down the path and more evidence do people need

 

They need to see him shoot someone in the middle of ...nvm

[Nivek 17407]

10 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Engaging trolls doesn't have the effect you think it does. You dignify their bullshit with your response as though it merits consideration. You're just getting trolled and falling for it. The troll wins. Maybe they really believe the earth is flat, maybe they're just saying it's flat to get a rise out of you. It doesn't matter. Why waste your time trying to explain to a troll that the earth is round? You're not defending against anyone mistakenly believing the earth is flat because some troll says it is. You're just getting suckered by a troll. 

I disagree.  The way I see it, there are two types of trolls on here.  One is a sooner/aggy who logs in and states something stupid.  The other are the sheeit types who spread disinformation willfully in hopes to sway people.  With the the first troll their motivation is simply to annoy people and shit all over an opponents message board.  The best way to combat this is to require a registration fee, but with a free message board,  the crowd source option is effective.    

With the disinformation trolls, their motivation is entirely different.  They seek to influence people as part of a campaign whether they be state sponsored or otherwise for their political motivations and the harm they cause is only part of the reward.  Ignoring people that spread lies helped us get 2016.  Ignoring the lies, led to Genocide is Myanmar.   These need to be countered and removed because they are not simply people asking questions, nor are they people from a different political perspective that ultimately have the same goals in mind (a better future),  these people seek to actively undermine our institutions and sow discord among our people.  They are the offspring of whores and german soldiers raised by drunks, living in the trailpark of europe, who seek not to better themselves (impossible) but rather to cause problems.  

Then there is the brotha/Swam/Tahoe/Slorch types, but I dare say they are trolls.  Dunning-Kruger examples, or to go old school, idiots.  Ignoring them is fine.  Making fun of them is sometimes necessary to establish their social value on this board.  Tahoe ran away, changed his name and then ran away again - he started out being taken seriously and then we collectively saw through his pseudo-high handed speech.  Slorch felt the need to changed his name for a short time and hide himself because of his loss in social standing.   Swam also ran away after realizing he was humiliated.  IT is not taken seriously.   He was argued and devalued by his own postings and came across as a tragic self-loathing figure.

So I disagree that we can simply better the place by ignoring the trolls and allowing them to pollute this environment with their lies or idiocy.  They can visit ShaggyBevo or Hornsfans with my blessing.

[totallynotabuttpirate 5484]

 

Shit would be boring as hell without the trolls. 

[BradInATX 9208]

Links, please.
Not the citing of the Atlantic, but people going on the record.
 
I'm ready to be outraged.  Just need proof.

A dozen corroborating sources including fox news? I NEED PROOF

Sees on Facebook that Antifa is a cover for a child molestation ring?

[TwiceHorn 32074]

I am guilty of giving Trump a benefit of the doubt early on and thinking that media was crying wolf too often.

But now we have enough data on the guy to know who he is.  So I am quite content with anonymous sources, when the allegations are perfectly credible and fit like a glove.

These aren't anonymous sources trashing a guy with an impeccable reputation.  They're anonymous sources telling us what we pretty much already know.

Edited September 12, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Brisketexan 106883]

A dozen corroborating sources including fox news? I NEED PROOF

Sees on Facebook that Antifa is a cover for a child molestation ring?

This, a thousand times this.

Vetted stories, with corroboration (yes, anonymous sources count), or shit, even exact recordings of Trump saying exactly what’s reported? NOPE, need more proof!

Stories that are flat-out insanity, started by some alt-right but at, or some nutbar lie stated by the president with literally zero basis? GET YOUR GUNS, FELLAS, WE’RE AT WAR!

The double standard on what is to be believed is a jaw-dropping display of the most idiotic cognitive dissonance. I wish we were watching it unfold in some little pissant country of no consequence....but nope, can’t have that in “the shittiest timeline.”

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13624]

Trump has lied at least twice- claims he never called McCain a loser, phoning home to Melania- while claiming the Atlantic story is a lie. Those are the type of lies a compulsive liar who just cranks 'em out tells- easily disproved. There's no care in constructing them cuz there's only so many hours in the day and so many more lies to tell, not just about the Atlantic story, which doesn't even allege Trump doing something he hasn't publicly done before, but about everything.

Yet still, a huge chunk of the population are struggling with evaluating credibility and likelihood of deception when Donald Trump disputes something.

 

[Biff Tannen 46163]

I just love that I provided a link to an article with the title "Here's all the corroboration" with links in the article to the individual corroborations and slorch just kept slorchin'.  Nope, need moar links!  Fucking slorch'd.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I hope your son disowns your sorry fucking ass.

Really?

Because I don't hate somebody enough?   LOlz.    Such a persuasive argument to go personal...

 

Besides that, my boys have known I'm an asshole for a lot longer than y'all.  "Hey dad, we're disappointed you don't spend all of your time raging over politics and actually live a life of values, leadership within our family and giving to others.   But what we really want to know is, what are you drinking for gameday?"

Part of this conversation actually happened today...  FTR   Four Roses Small Batch.

Edited September 12, 2020 by slorch

[Sawbonz 28215]

1 hour ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Trump has lied at least twice- claims he never called McCain a loser, phoning home to Melania- while claiming the Atlantic story is a lie. Those are the type of lies a compulsive liar who just cranks 'em out tells- easily disproved. There's no care in constructing them cuz there's only so many hours in the day and so many more lies to tell, not just about the Atlantic story, which doesn't even allege Trump doing something he hasn't publicly done before, but about everything.

Yet still, a huge chunk of the population are struggling with evaluating credibility and likelihood of deception when Donald Trump disputes something.

 

The pivot I’ve seen lately on social media is “Actions speak louder than words” which is really fucking amazing because he has done shit that is WAY worse than what he has said

[Sawbonz 28215]

Missed my chance to edit but

 

as far as lies, he has told > 20000 —TWENTY THOUSAND — verified lies since taking office. There is literally no one's word I wouldn’t take over his at this point. On any topic

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 hours ago, Nivek said:

I disagree.  The way I see it, there are two types of trolls on here.  One is a sooner/aggy who logs in and states something stupid.  The other are the sheeit types who spread disinformation willfully in hopes to sway people.  With the the first troll their motivation is simply to annoy people and shit all over an opponents message board.  The best way to combat this is to require a registration fee, but with a free message board,  the crowd source option is effective.    

With the disinformation trolls, their motivation is entirely different.  They seek to influence people as part of a campaign whether they be state sponsored or otherwise for their political motivations and the harm they cause is only part of the reward.  Ignoring people that spread lies helped us get 2016.  Ignoring the lies, led to Genocide is Myanmar.   These need to be countered and removed because they are not simply people asking questions, nor are they people from a different political perspective that ultimately have the same goals in mind (a better future),  these people seek to actively undermine our institutions and sow discord among our people.  They are the offspring of whores and german soldiers raised by drunks, living in the trailpark of europe, who seek not to better themselves (impossible) but rather to cause problems.  

Then there is the brotha/Swam/Tahoe/Slorch types, but I dare say they are trolls.  Dunning-Kruger examples, or to go old school, idiots.  Ignoring them is fine.  Making fun of them is sometimes necessary to establish their social value on this board.  Tahoe ran away, changed his name and then ran away again - he started out being taken seriously and then we collectively saw through his pseudo-high handed speech.  Slorch felt the need to changed his name for a short time and hide himself because of his loss in social standing.   Swam also ran away after realizing he was humiliated.  IT is not taken seriously.   He was argued and devalued by his own postings and came across as a tragic self-loathing figure.

So I disagree that we can simply better the place by ignoring the trolls and allowing them to pollute this environment with their lies or idiocy.  They can visit ShaggyBevo or Hornsfans with my blessing.

Good post. One correction though, Swam didn’t run away, he was crowdbanned. I know because I saw it happen and tried to stop it. Swam was by far the most entertaining idiot troll. Even more so than the sack. 

[Nivek 17407]

29 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Missed my chance to edit but

 

as far as lies, he has told > 20000 —TWENTY THOUSAND — verified lies since taking office. There is literally no one's word I wouldn’t take over his at this point. On any topic

Put it into context.  That is nearly 14 lies a day. 

[Nivek 17407]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

This, a thousand times this.

Vetted stories, with corroboration (yes, anonymous sources count), or shit, even exact recordings of Trump saying exactly what’s reported? NOPE, need more proof!

Stories that are flat-out insanity, started by some alt-right but at, or some nutbar lie stated by the president with literally zero basis? GET YOUR GUNS, FELLAS, WE’RE AT WAR!

The double standard on what is to be believed is a jaw-dropping display of the most idiotic cognitive dissonance. I wish we were watching it unfold in some little pissant country of no consequence....but nope, can’t have that in “the shittiest timeline.”

As usual, David Chappelle already covered this.  I would always recommend enjoying his art in entirety but for our squirrel attention span members skip ahead to 3:04.

Quote

 

 

[BrickHorn 18447]

39 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Missed my chance to edit but

 

as far as lies, he has told > 20000 —TWENTY THOUSAND — verified lies since taking office. There is literally no one's word I wouldn’t take over his at this point. On any topic

Satan / the serpent in Genesis 3 was literally more honest than Trump. Think about that.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

2 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

Satan / the serpent in Genesis 3 was literally more honest than Trump. Think about that.

Not just Satan. You could list any villain from a children's/adolescent story or *movie from the last two centuries and probably not reach that number of untruths told.

The Wolf in Little Red Riding Hood was more honest than Trump.

Voldemort in the Harry Potter series was more honest than Trump.

The White Witch in The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe was more honest than Trump.

Napoleon from Animal Farm was more honest than Trump.

It from A Wrinkle in Time was more honest than Trump.

The Child Snatcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was more honest than Trump.

Scar in The Lion King was more honest than Trump.

 

 

Villains in children's literature and movies serve to teach children about evil in our world and how people cope with it. Most children identify with the hero/protagonist, but old Trump seemed to chart a different course if his parents read to him at all.

*Movies obviously are more recent.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

Not just Satan. You could list any villain from a children's/adolescent story or *movie from the last two centuries and probably not reach that number of untruths told.
The Wolf in Little Red Riding Hood was more honest than Trump.
Voldemort in the Harry Potter series was more honest than Trump.
The White Witch in The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe was more honest than Trump.
Napoleon from Animal Farm was more honest than Trump.
It from A Wrinkle in Time was more honest than Trump.
The Child Snatcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was more honest than Trump.
Scar in The Lion King was more honest than Trump.
 
 
Villains in children's literature and movies serve to teach children about evil in our world and how people cope with it. Most children identify with the hero/protagonist, but old Trump seemed to chart a different course if his parents read to him at all.
*Movies obviously are more recent.

Johnny Lawrence was more honest than the hero, Daniel LaRusso. Both were more honest than Trump.

Villains tend to be pretty straightforward. They have goals that will impact others negatively if they come to fruition. What sets Trump apart is that he has no goals. His entire endgame is self promotion and nothing more. Because of that, he has allowed 100s of other villains with actual goals to rise up in his wake.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

Johnny Lawrence was more honest than the hero, Daniel LaRusso. Both were more honest than Trump.

Villains tend to be pretty straightforward. They have goals that will impact others negatively if they come to fruition. What sets Trump apart is that he has no goals. His entire endgame is self promotion and nothing more. Because of that, he has allowed 100s of other villains with actual goals to rise up in his wake.

Something I had not considered. Could self promotion be a goal but as it is insatiable, not really? Is that what you're saying? He certainly has a coterie of criminals and reprobates surrounding him.

[4th&Five 41988]

He doesn’t watch TV though. 

 

[Biff Tannen 46163]

1 minute ago, 4th&Five said:

He doesn’t watch TV though. 

 

I mean, a bunch of people corroborated it, you fucking jerk off. I guess grhorn will believe you though. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

23 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

He doesn’t watch TV though. 

 

This tweets confirms its true for me. 

[Serak The Preparer 3484]

On 9/11/2020 at 6:42 PM, slorch said:

IDK if it's true or not.  neither do you.  should be easy as fuck to prove.  Link to the Mccain thing is in this thread.  I said it was fucked up that he said it.  Your last question is exactly why I have an issue with it.  I don't care how the left characterizes the dude.  It's always a bloodbath on that front.

 

Link to anyone vouching for the validity of this accusation?

Slorch, I totally get saying that nobody knows if it's true or not. But with proverbial gun to the head, do you think it's more likely that he said what was reported, or more likely that he didn't? Not asking for criminal conviction, no court-room preponderance of evidence, just curious what you think is more likely?

[Wulaw Horn 19590]

On 9/12/2020 at 4:00 PM, longhornmatt said:

Are your boys big, strong sons from central casting?  And did they call you “Sir” during this conversation and follow it by awarding you the Lubbock Man of the Year Award?

Something about a single tear on their face. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

On 9/12/2020 at 4:59 PM, Mrs Whiggins said:

Something I had not considered. Could self promotion be a goal but as it is insatiable, not really? Is that what you're saying? He certainly has a coterie of criminals and reprobates surrounding him.

I suppose self promotion can be a goal for an individual villain, but it provides nothing for the villain's lackeys to strive for.  This is what really sets Trump apart.  None of his lackeys give a shit about his goal of self promotion. They join so they can promote their own evil acts and they feed his self promotion as a means to achieve their own goals.

The Joker wants to kill Batman so that criminals can have free reign.  Other criminals sign up for that goal.

ISIS wants a fundamentalist state.  Other villains sign up to ISIS because they have the same goal.

Trump has no real goals, but wants followers who will promote him.  He also has no ethical or moral code so he will give his followers anything they want so long as they promote him.  Evangelicals join so they can push for their fundamentalist state.  White supremacists join so they can push for their ethnonationalist state.  Sick xenophobes join so they can gleefully torture immigrant children.  Conspiracy theorists join so they can push their nutjob conspiracies.  Etc.  Etc.

Trump allows for a Pandora's box of negative outcomes.  

[tantric superman 4668]

On 9/13/2020 at 10:16 AM, Serak The Preparer said:

Slorch, I totally get saying that nobody knows if it's true or not. But with proverbial gun to the head, do you think it's more likely that he said what was reported, or more likely that he didn't? Not asking for criminal conviction, no court-room preponderance of evidence, just curious what you think is more likely?

Yeah, I am curious about the response to this as well.

(Plus, fuck the Central Park Five, Khzir Khan and his silent wife, and Barack Hussein who was born in Ubangi.)

[Anastasis 23717]

There isn't really a bounty thread, so just gonna drop this here since we did a little merry go round over it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/u-s-commander-intel-still-hasn-t-established-russia-paid-n1240020

WASHINGTON — Two months after top Pentagon officials vowed to get to the bottom of whether the Russian government bribed the Taliban to kill American service members, the commander of troops in the region says a detailed review of all available intelligence has not been able to corroborate the existence of such a program.

"It just has not been proved to a level of certainty that satisfies me," Gen. Frank McKenzie, commander of the U.S. Central Command, told NBC News. McKenzie oversees U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The U.S. continues to hunt for new information on the matter, he said.

"We continue to look for that evidence," the general said. "I just haven't seen it yet. But … it's not a closed issue."

McKenzie's comments, reflecting a consensus view among military leaders, underscores the lack of certainty around a narrative that has been accepted as fact...

 

 

 

[RPM 26621]

nvm

Edited September 14, 2020 by RPM

[Nivek 17407]

Anastasis,

That article is a bunch of fluff. What is the General’s criteria? What evidence did they find? How hard did they look/how much resources did they commit?

[Nivek 17407]

I get it. Support Our Troops.  He meant the Russian troops this entire time.  That makes sense actually.

[Anastasis 23717]

  

10 hours ago, Nivek said:

Anastasis,

That article is a bunch of fluff. What is the General’s criteria? What evidence did they find? How hard did they look/how much resources did they commit?

OK.  I mean its the theater commander on record, with access to all of the intelligence, saying that he would kick some Russian ass if it was true, but that he has not seen the dots connected into an actionable assessment.   

 

Many military officials have always been more skeptical, several senior officials said, in part because they had not seen all the intelligence the CIA had gathered. Unlike counterterrorism information, intelligence gathered about sensitive Russian government activities is often closely held, sometimes distributed only in paper form to a small number of senior officials in Washington. [*And the NYT of course*]

But after The New York Times reported on intelligence about an alleged bounty program, senior military officials have had a chance to examine all the intelligence, officials say.

...

Eight weeks later, McKenzie said, differing opinions persist about what conclusions the U.S. can draw from the information.

"People that are involved in it get very emotional about it," he said. "I can't afford to be emotional about it. I've got to step back and look at the totality of the picture."

If the Russians are trying to kill Americans in Afghanistan, he said, "I want to know, because I won't hesitate to take action if that's the case. I just haven't seen it. I just haven't seen it. There's a lot of conflicting information out there, but nothing was out there that I could grasp that connect together in a pattern that I would consider actionable."

...

Echoing comments in July by Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, McKenzie said that if he could establish that the Russians were offering payments to kill Americans, he would push to forcefully respond. But the intelligence is far from conclusive, he said.

"I found what they presented to me very concerning, very worrisome. I just couldn't see the final connection, so I sent my guys back and said, look, keep digging. So we have continued to dig and look because this involves potential threats to U.S. forces, it's open," he said, adding, "I just haven't seen anything that closes that gap yet."

 

Look man, it's not the first time that the NYT has been used to push politically motivated narratives. They know the drill, you should too. I wish that you would consider applying the same level of skepticism to anonymous CIA sources as you do the on the record comments of the CENTCOM commander. 

Edited September 15, 2020 by Anastasis

[Nivek 17407]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

  

OK.  I mean its the theater commander on record, with access to all of the intelligence, saying that he would kick some Russian ass if it was true, but that he has not seen the dots connected into an actionable assessment.   

 

Many military officials have always been more skeptical, several senior officials said, in part because they had not seen all the intelligence the CIA had gathered. Unlike counterterrorism information, intelligence gathered about sensitive Russian government activities is often closely held, sometimes distributed only in paper form to a small number of senior officials in Washington. [*And the NYT of course*]

But after The New York Times reported on intelligence about an alleged bounty program, senior military officials have had a chance to examine all the intelligence, officials say.

...

Eight weeks later, McKenzie said, differing opinions persist about what conclusions the U.S. can draw from the information.

"People that are involved in it get very emotional about it," he said. "I can't afford to be emotional about it. I've got to step back and look at the totality of the picture."

If the Russians are trying to kill Americans in Afghanistan, he said, "I want to know, because I won't hesitate to take action if that's the case. I just haven't seen it. I just haven't seen it. There's a lot of conflicting information out there, but nothing was out there that I could grasp that connect together in a pattern that I would consider actionable."

...

Echoing comments in July by Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, McKenzie said that if he could establish that the Russians were offering payments to kill Americans, he would push to forcefully respond. But the intelligence is far from conclusive, he said.

"I found what they presented to me very concerning, very worrisome. I just couldn't see the final connection, so I sent my guys back and said, look, keep digging. So we have continued to dig and look because this involves potential threats to U.S. forces, it's open," he said, adding, "I just haven't seen anything that closes that gap yet."

 

Look man, it's not the first time that the NYT has been used to push politically motivated narratives. They know the drill, you should too. I wish that you would consider applying the same level of skepticism to anonymous CIA sources as you do the on the record comments of the CENTCOM commander. 

The article was fluff and politically motivated.  We learned only the existence of an investigation, not the scope or the depth.  We don't know if it is a hamstrung, blinded investigation carried out by the jr level mail clerk or a $50+ million dollar investigation handled by top men (Top Men).

I appreciate the both sides in there.  You know it is not the same thing as a multiple CI comment/source confirmed by multiple journalists from multiple networks.  

[Anastasis 23717]

2 minutes ago, Nivek said:

You know it is not the same thing as a multiple CI comment/source confirmed by multiple journalists from multiple networks.  

Right, it's not.  It's the CENTCOM commander on the record and not a web of circular anonymous corroboration.

 

 

Edited September 15, 2020 by Anastasis

[GRHorn 105]

Ah, Russian bounties. Just another anonymously sourced BS story that the CR furiously fapped to. 

Only to have actual sources come out and categorically deny the whole thing. This one managed to wrap up a few seemingly smart posters here and on Twitter though. #Sad

Edited September 16, 2020 by GRHorn