Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2018 American Political Scene

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
    I didn't construct my words correctly, so here it goes. I bought Facebook ads targeting the Dems, hacked wikileaks (some say Assange himself gave the data to the Russians) data, or done anything which is illegal according to US law, from my country (which is not illegal). But, Trump has not paid me a single dollar to do so (not proved till now). I did it on my own. So how is Trump involved? For all we know, Putin was counting on Trump winning the election to amend ties with US, as Hillary is a Russia hater. I don't see any proof from US intelligence agencies that Trump was involved. If he was, burn him at the stakes. But where is the proof?

    Criticize Trump for his closet support of white supremacists, or his fake news jibes, or his policies. But before criticizing him for colluding with the Russians, I'd like to see proof. US has got enough checks and balances to take corrective measures or impeach him should there be any hint of wrongdoing on his part.
    My recommendation would be to report to the Mueller Inquiry.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by snapper View Post
      My recommendation would be to report to the Mueller Inquiry.
      Report what? That US should fight for Ukraine? You have no point, nothing on Trump and you go on and on and on. Write a letter to Trump and see where that takes you. AFAIK, nobody in this board are on Trump's team, and ranting here everyday about Ukraine won't solve your issue. Your obsession with Trump is doing you no good, and it's driving you mad.
      Last edited by Oracle; 03 Nov 18,, 06:49.
      Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Red Team View Post
        Well to name the most recent example, the guy was endorsing lethal force as a primary response for a hypothetical case of migrants throwing rocks at troops. American police have quelled riots of thousands of people doing this without immediately resorting to shooting into crowds, why should the response suddenly be so severe?
        I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

        Where is the issue?
        Last edited by Versus; 03 Nov 18,, 09:04.

        Comment


        • Well...yeah, why I'm not supprised.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mekxrYxEvEA

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LOoUPX5_xc

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
            Report what? That US should fight for Ukraine? You have no point, nothing on Trump and you go on and on and on. Write a letter to Trump and see where that takes you. AFAIK, nobody in this board are on Trump's team, and ranting here everyday about Ukraine won't solve your issue. Your obsession with Trump is doing you no good, and it's driving you mad.
            I replied to you saying that nobody thought that Moscow interfered in the US election; yes they do. That is all. If you wish to discuss the war here fine but do not tell me I raised the issue when replying to you regarding the US election.

            Comment


            • Sry double post.
              Last edited by snapper; 03 Nov 18,, 13:31.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Versus View Post
                I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

                Where is the issue?
                If I have to explain to you why shooting at unarmed civilians is fundamentally wrong, then clearly we are on two different pages.
                "Draft beer, not people."

                Comment


                • I'm wondering which professional Army would listen to its leader and shoot at unarmed civilians. Trump saved himself a big embarrassment.
                  Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                    I'm wondering which professional Army would listen to its leader and shoot at unarmed civilians. Trump saved himself a big embarrassment.
                    Lethal force is authorized in defence of self and position, in this case the border. Just because they're unarmed civilians does not relieve you of your responsibility to defend your position.

                    That being said, it will be a cold day in hell before I order fire on unarmed civilians. I will accept their surrender or I will force their surrender. Rock throwers will be identified and treated as illegal combattants.
                    Chimo

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Red Team View Post
                      If I have to explain to you why shooting at unarmed civilians is fundamentally wrong, then clearly we are on two different pages.
                      After what Albanian "refugees" and "migrants" did few decades later, after havoc that current "migrants" and "refugees" are doing all accross Eu and in Serbia (although it is suppressed), my answer is unequivocally-ON SITE.
                      Except if you like to see mutilated corpses hanging from a bridge on a highway or videos of your law enforcment officers being cut to pieces like ours were.

                      They are not migrants nor refugees, to begin with, yet they are political activists with hostile intent and agenda against US.
                      Last edited by Versus; 03 Nov 18,, 22:17.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Versus View Post

                        They are not migrants nor refugees, to begin with, yet they are political activists with hostile intent and agenda against US.
                        You must have some pretty damning evidence that no one, including the US government, has to draw such a conclusion.

                        After what Albanian "refugees" and "migrants" did few decades later, after havoc that current "migrants" and "refugees" are doing all accross Eu and in Serbia (although it is suppressed), my answer is unequivocally-ON SITE.
                        Except if you like to see mutilated corpses hanging from a bridge on a highway or videos of your law enforcment officers being cut to pieces like ours were.
                        So to prevent a hypothetical bloodbath from occurring, we should commit a literal bloodbath? I hate invoking Godwin's law, but this sounds like stuff straight out of Mein kampf.
                        "Draft beer, not people."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Red Team View Post
                          If I have to explain to you why shooting at unarmed civilians is fundamentally wrong, then clearly we are on two different pages.
                          You aren't just on different pages, you are in different books in different libraries.
                          sigpic

                          Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                            Lethal force is authorized in defence of self and position, in this case the border. Just because they're unarmed civilians does not relieve you of your responsibility to defend your position.

                            That being said, it will be a cold day in hell before I order fire on unarmed civilians. I will accept their surrender or I will force their surrender. Rock throwers will be identified and treated as illegal combattants.
                            This shouldn't be a military operation to begin with. Unless there is evidence the crowd has more serious weaponry than a few stones they picked up they should be handled by law enforcement. If they do become violent there are riot police who have far more appropriate training and equipment to deal with that.

                            This whole conversation is somewhere between bizarre and insane.
                            sigpic

                            Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Red Team View Post
                              You must have some pretty damning evidence that no one, including the US government, has to draw such a conclusion.



                              So to prevent a hypothetical bloodbath from occurring, we should commit a literal bloodbath? I hate invoking Godwin's law, but this sounds like stuff straight out of Mein kampf.
                              Like I said, different books, different bookshops.
                              sigpic

                              Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                                This shouldn't be a military operation to begin with. Unless there is evidence the crowd has more serious weaponry than a few stones they picked up they should be handled by law enforcement. If they do become violent there are riot police who have far more appropriate training and equipment to deal with that.

                                This whole conversation is somewhere between bizarre and insane.
                                To be fair BF, the National Guard that would be deployed should ostensibly have competence in crowd/riot control and would be expected to respond to the crowd as such. Despite some high profile incidents in the past (i.e., My Lai), there's plenty of faith around that American troops will not participate in a civilian turkey shoot. The real disturbing part are the people that so readily accept committing virtual war crimes to "keep the dang immigrants from takin' 'er jerbs."

                                Different books, different bookshops, and different planets.
                                "Draft beer, not people."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X