beechguy

On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 12:32 AM, Morch said:

 

Allow me to doubt you'd have any issues faulting such behavior if the candidate was nominated by or affiliated with the "other side". Then it would have been faux righteous indignation time.

The only person you should doubt, is guy you look at in the mirror.

I believe in being fair as possible, and there are several Republicans I would be happy to see go. Until they showed themselves to have a spine, Graham and McConnell were near the top of the list. But the BS the Democrats have tried to push the past ten years is ridiculous, and as long as the likes of Schumer, Booker, etc. are in office, there is no way I'll vote to give them more leverage. 

3 hours ago, simple1 said:

Nevermind, as I said 'head in the sand'

Go spend a few years in the Middle East or Africa, you'll see who really has their head in the sand.

29 minutes ago, simple1 said:

OK No need for 'coalition of the willing etc. Great idea, US policy creates conflict for which previously allied military have died as a consequence - no more.

The coalition of the willing was to prevent hurt feelings at the time, I don't think it was necessary.  If others sent their military, they had their own reasons. As for now, the Saudis and the Israelis seem happier, more than can be said when Obama was around. As to the Japanese, Europeans, etc., if they want to do business fine, but they don't really have anything that we can't get somewhere else.

54 minutes ago, simple1 said:

You don't believe support for a US President from within allied countries is important? Most would call out that POV as "head in the sand".

I lived in the Middle East for 15 years, including almost 2 years in Iraq and Afghanistan, lot of respect for the military of other countries, their governments, not so much. I assure you, they need us far more than we need them. This go along to get along attitude, is bullshit.

5 minutes ago, candide said:

Well, your opinion is obviously not shared abroad.

That's their problem.

15 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

So I guess you're not going to stop whining then?  Perhaps it was too much to hope for.

 

Did you see the examples I gave? 
 

The Merrick Garland incident: republicans being obstructionists and refusing to allow hearings on judicial nominations, even below the supreme court.

 

Gerrymandering: election hijacking, plain and simple.  In what kind of an election could your party win 53% of the vote but get 77% of the seats?  Answer: a hijacked one.

 

Push-polls: Would you still vote for Trump if you knew that he fathered an illegitimate black child?

 

Finally, there is Mitch McTurtle standing on the floor of the senate announcing his obdurate, obstructionist intentions.

 

 

Show me where I said anything about attempted assassination.

 

And you're saying the Democrats never did such things, especially in the days of Harry Reid, etc.?

BS

Generally speaking, if they have a negative opinion of the U.S., especially since Trump took office, that's their problem. I have to say, I was pretty ashamed when Obama was in there.

4 hours ago, SheungWan said:

Kavanaugh unhinged? Whatever on earth gave us this impression during his testimony appearance? ????

He wasn't unhinged, that's what it looks like when a guy has a set of balls, and pushes back against some A holes.

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Do you consider Kavanaugh credible? It's clear that he's lied to the Senate committee.

More so than many of the Democrats on the committee, and at least a few of the Republicans, more importantly, I didn't find Ford all that credible either. That still doesn't mean I would be interested in hanging out with Kavanaugh or Trump. I just think some of these attacks are uncalled for, especially when it is just a reflection of the hate for Trump.

16 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You claim there are allegations of misconduct against some Senators who are going to vote on the Supreme Court nomination of a judge who has allegations of sexual misconduct and was nominated by a President with multiple allegations of sexual conduct, and you object to this.

 

Ok, you win.  Let's throw out all of them, especially the President, and start over.

I'm not necessarily opposed to that.

37 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Are any of these people trying to get a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court?

No, but they are trying to control who does, I don't consider them credible.

45 minutes ago, Credo said:

 Sure.   What exactly have they done that needs investigating?   No need to respond to the Clinton's though, they've been investigated endlessly for years and years.   

 

For Feinstein, let's look into withholding information on Mrs. Ford's letter, then an apparent leak. If no one else had access, who leaked it. Never mind her issues with the hired help. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/explain-the-chinese-spy-sen-feinstein/2018/08/09/0560ca60-9bfd-11e8-b60b-1c897f17e185_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ff38e1ef154f

For Booker, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/09/21/in-1992-cory-booker-admitted-to-groping-a-high-school-classmate-and-issued-a-call-for-sexual-respect/?utm_term=.5369987b37de,     Is that all there was to it? Never mind some financial transactions that raised questions.

For Harris, her issues started before she became a Senator, but no shortage of trying to misrepresent the facts during hearings, plenty of video of that. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sen-kamala-harris-likely-to-face-lawsuit-over-california-attorney-general-conduct

Better read these quickly, I have a history of being deleted.

5 hours ago, Sheryl said:

Very well put.

 

The testimony IMO was surprising and thoroughly established that he is unfit. And by that I mean HIS testimony, not hers. Nothing wrong with her testimony, but no surprises either, she said what we already know she says happened, and had it not been for his testimony we might not be much further along. It would still be "he said/she said". 

 

He on the other hand put on an astounding performance of belligerence and disrespect for the Senators questioning him, accompanied by a highly policitized tirade. These alone should disqualify him. Then on top of this, almost certain perjury with respect to his drinking during HS and college. Perjury pretty easy to prove. There's only one eye witness to the alleged attack (and that, a close friend of his who was very drunk at the time) but there are scores of witnesses to his drinking behavior.

 

If he had instead said something to the effect of "I did get drunk in my teens and in college, and sometimes blacked out, as many kids that age do.  That was more than 30 years ago and is not indicative of my conduct as an adult. I do not do such things now and have not done so since being appointed to the bar 30 some odd years ago.  As a teenager, I knew Dr. Ford and attended parties she may also have attended but I have no memory of the incident she describes. If as a teenager while extremely drunk I did anything  that frightened her or made her feel attacked I am deeply sorry for it. That's not the adult I became" and then coupled that with a calm, dignified and respectful demeaner, he'd be home free.  Instead he revealed himself to be unable to control his temper, belligerent, disrespectful, and suffering from a sense of entitlement, along with a deep political bias. He also revealed himself as very ready to lie under oath, even on somewhat tangential matters.

 

I hope prosecution for perjury follows. The Statute of Limitations long ran out for sexual assault, and it would in any event be very, very hard to prove. But it is well in effect for perjury committed just last week and that will be much easier to establish.   If convicted of perjury he should IMO be  disbarred.

 

 

 

 

Very well, let's apply those same standards to Feinstein, Booker, Kamala Harris, and of course Hillary if she decides to run again. No need for double standards are there.

I should also have added, that two of the ISIS men had made it to Finland, giving validity to Trump's caution to the U.S. and Allies, that a more thorough vetting process should be used when dealing with refugees. Please don't get me started on the Iran Deal and other poor foreign policy decisions made by the previous administration.

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

The US military was making good progress against ISIS before Trump took office.  ISIS lost over half its territory before Trump took office.  The ISIS retreat didn't begin with Trump, even though Trump pretends it did.  Stick with the facts.

And you are still missing the point, if things had been done correctly, ISIS never would have had that territory, Obama gave it them, most coming through Turkey and Syria. Your inexperience with Arab culture is showing, at some point you don't ask, you show some leadership, and tell them what is going to happen, even if it is their country. As to civilian loses, what do you think was happening to those people while Obama was sitting on his hands? They were being raped, tortured, and executed by the thousands. 

This incident happened just down the road from where I was at in 2010. When I departed, things were going reasonably good, businesses opened again, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Camp_Speicher_massacre

Why do you think Trump is so popular in Saudi, Israel, and other countries in the Middle East. Look at the current situation with Saudi and Canada.

In the mean while, this isn't just about Trump, there a lot of Red States out there, if the Democrats want to change that, they need to offer something appealing. So far I'm not seeing it. As for Trump's term so far, I like the tax situation, I'm finding better health insurance options, the business and employment situation is better, etc.  dailykos.com/images/327488/original/Governors.png 

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

In short, you don't know who made the decision to let ISIS retreat, why it was made, or what the alternatives were.  I assume you wanted to bomb the hell out of them and all the civilians they were hiding among.  How many civilians do you think would have died if this had been done?

 

Way off-topic; but you're now blaming Obama for the Arab Spring?  You seem keen on bombing civilians, do you think Obama should have bombed the protesters?

 

 

The alternative, was for us not to abandon our position and influence in northern Iraq, then the problem never would have occurred.  Obama got outsmarted by ISIS( the JV Team), and they crapped all over his Red Line. 

Trump is allowing the military to make some progress, and it's not all about dropping bombs.

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

No, I was not there.  I seriously doubt you were "there" in the military planning meetings when options, costs and benefits were evaluated. 

 

Do you know if the decision to allow a retreat was made by Obama or delegated to his generals?  If made by Obama, do you think it was following a military recommendation from his generals, or overruling it?  Were you there?

I was there working on reconnaissance and surveillance programs, no didn't sit in on the meetings with the Generals, just heard their, and their subordinate's comments as we conducted operations. You think Wikileaks was?

The feeling I got, is they, commanding officers, didn't think it was a good idea, but that didn't stop Obama, with help from Hilary. But, it didn't stop there, Obama and Hilary have a lot of blood on their hands from their positions on the Arab Spring. A lot of bodies in the dirt, and floating in Med, from Syria, Egypt, Libya, etc. I don't see how you all could call Hilary qualified, when she couldn't even mange classified material, never mind make a good policy decision. 

So for 2016, many of us felt that Trump was a better choice than Hilary, both domestically and for foreign policy issues. If you guys don't like it, give us better options for future elections.

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

To save civilian lives ISIS was sometimes allowed to retreat, leaving behind heavy weapons.  That is still going on with other rebel groups.  However a retreat is a retreat, and involves the surrender of territory.  By the start of 2017 ISIS held less than half the territory they held at their peak.  That's a retreat.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISIL_territorial_claims

And you're still not getting it, they would not have anywhere to retreat from, except for Obama's piss poor policy. Again, were you there?

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

Manufacturing as a percent of GDP was in decline long before Obama took office.  https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.IND.MANF.ZS?locations=US  Trump is unlikely to change that.  He is also unlikely to create wage growth that is higher than inflation, though he has a good chance of triggering significant inflation.  While  his massive deficit spending in an already strong economy might briefly increase GDP growth, it won't last and the debt consequences will be severe.

 

You ignored my statement of the obvious:  When times are good smart people, businesses and countries reduce their debt load.  Trump is running it up.  Pretty stupid, don't you think?

 

Try to keep your timeline straight.  Bergdahl was not charged or convicted of desertion until after he had been repatriated.  You think it's outrageous that the Trump campaign is being investigated, but you have no problem condemning a man before he was charged.

 

In your post #3803 you stated, as part of Trump's imagined accomplishments "Making NATO pay their share"  I pointed out that Trump has not received any commitment from NATO beyond those already made.  I assume you have now conceded that Trump hasn't "made" NATO commit to anything they haven't already committed to, and you are just expressing your approval of Trump's habit of offending democratic allies and sucking up to dictators.

 

 

Yes, ISIS was in full retreat, losing ground in cities and country and the ability to generate revenue before Trump took office.  Trump is just taking unearned credit for their collapse, but you obviously won't acknowledge that. 

 

It is not an opinion that Trump reversed himself of family separation, it is a fact.

You're wrong about ISIS, they wouldn't have had anywhere to retreat from, if Obama hadn't given it to them. I was there (Anbar Province & Tikrit 2008-2010), were you? Pretty easy to BS people, that haven't been there.

6 hours ago, Gecko123 said:

 

Notice it was an opinion piece, not necessarily fact. My opinion, people knew Hilary and just didn't like her.