ADVERTISEMENT

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

Is that a plea for me to make my comparisons easier for you to understand? My comparison in fact related American troops lost in combat during the last two administrations. Are you really too dense to pick up on that?

Furthermore, comparisons of dissimilar "issues" is oftentimes appropriate to highlight the stark differences between them, but it should never be attempted by those with small, inadequate minds. In other words, stick to comparing apples to apples.
You couldn't resist even when I told you not to do so. The fact that you don't see (or can't admit) the idiocy makes it even worse. We'll make this exceedingly elementary for you and compare just two dynamics, although there are others besides time and situation.

Trump came into office with a full blown war on his hands. Sadly, our incredible women and men die when we are in a war, regardless of who is president. But, it's part of the reason that Trump moved to get us out of there and didn't take us into any other wars around the world. He was president for four full years of Afghanistan.

Biden came into office on January 20, 2021. Abby Gate happened on August 26, 2021. Not that we were actually "out", but Joe ended the evacuation on August 31, 2021. That's eight months.

Four years beginning with full blown fighting tailing off towards the end versus a mere eight months of drawing down. One would hope even you could now see the stupidity of your linked X, but I'm not banking on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nctransplant
Revisionist history by a notorious Trump apologist. Imagine that.

Gerald Ford was in Palm Springs playing golf as the world watched Saigon fall in the spring of '75. Meanwhile, Trump played a significant role in screwing up the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Cue bluetoe's denial.

President Trump ordered direct talks with the Taliban without consulting with our allies and partners or allowing the Afghan government at the negotiating table. In September 2019, President Trump emboldened the Taliban by publicly considering inviting them to Camp David on the anniversary of 9/11. In February 2020, the United States and the Taliban reached a deal, known as the Doha Agreement, under which the United States agreed to withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by May 2021.

During the transition from the Trump Administration to the Biden Administration, the outgoing Administration provided no plans for how to conduct the final withdrawal or to evacuate Americans and Afghan allies. Indeed, there were no such plans in place when President Biden came into office, even with the agreed upon full withdrawal just over three months away.

As a result, when President Biden took office on January 20, 2021, the Taliban were in the strongest military position that they had been in since 2001, controlling or contesting nearly half of the country. At the same time, the United States had only 2,500 troops on the ground—the lowest number of troops in Afghanistan since 2001—and President Biden was facing President Trump’s near-term deadline to withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by May 2021, or the Taliban would resume its attacks on U.S. and allied troops.

Are you the "Swiftie" version of this administration or something? You cheer and call them the greatest ever regardless of the music? Look, I would agree that there are plenty of things to bitch about on Afghanistan from the beginning to the end and that includes each president who had their fingers on it, but that doesn't somehow exonerate the butcher job our current administration did. Regardless:

It's absurd to defend the actions of this administration by linking a document that was produced and is disseminated by this administration.

You were probably the kind of student who thought that teachers should let them decide their own grades.
 
Anyone see the video of our VP going from her vehicle up the steps on AF2? Reporters were shouting questions to her, but she "couldn't" hear them to provide any answers because she had her wired earbuds in and was holding an iphone. You know, she was obviously on an important call and couldn't possibly take a few minutes to answer questions. Except then, as she's going up the steps, she holds the phone up to her left ear. I mean, everyone knows that when you use your earbuds, you also have to hold the phone to your ear like you aren't using earbuds, right?????
 
Anyone see the video of our VP going from her vehicle up the steps on AF2? Reporters were shouting questions to her, but she "couldn't" hear them to provide any answers because she had her wired earbuds in and was holding an iphone. You know, she was obviously on an important call and couldn't possibly take a few minutes to answer questions. Except then, as she's going up the steps, she holds the phone up to her left ear. I mean, everyone knows that when you use your earbuds, you also have to hold the phone to your ear like you aren't using earbuds, right?????
Our board lefties can't help themselves. Somehow in a little over a month, she goes from the worst VP ever, the left wanting her replaced on the ticket, to Obama Lite. The Dem Party which includes the mainstream media are trying to gaslight the entire country. Not to mention Tampon Tim who's own brother says don't vote for them.
And, why lie about working at Mickey Dee's? Pretty pathetic.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2
You couldn't resist even when I told you not to do so. The fact that you don't see (or can't admit) the idiocy makes it even worse. We'll make this exceedingly elementary for you and compare just two dynamics, although there are others besides time and situation.

Trump came into office with a full blown war on his hands. Sadly, our incredible women and men die when we are in a war, regardless of who is president. But, it's part of the reason that Trump moved to get us out of there and didn't take us into any other wars around the world. He was president for four full years of Afghanistan.

Biden came into office on January 20, 2021. Abby Gate happened on August 26, 2021. Not that we were actually "out", but Joe ended the evacuation on August 31, 2021. That's eight months.

Four years beginning with full blown fighting tailing off towards the end versus a mere eight months of drawing down. One would hope even you could now see the stupidity of your linked X, but I'm not banking on it.
Do you people even know how those 13 servicemen died? Look it up and let us know how anybody could have prevented that. You people seem so well versed in military matters yet I doubt any of you have served a day.
 
Do you people even know how those 13 servicemen died? Look it up and let us know how anybody could have prevented that. You people seem so well versed in military matters yet I doubt any of you have served a day.
Don't try to defend him by moving the goalposts or excusing the actions of this administration. The X he posted tried to make a point that four times the amount of servicemen and women died during Trump's presidency versus the current administration. As seemingly always, it was completely out of context because Trump's administration was four year's time of full blown war versus eight months of withdrawing after we had already agreed with the enemy that we were leaving. The stat is worthless to anyone except fanboys. Clearly, you are one.
 
Do you people even know how those 13 servicemen died? Look it up and let us know how anybody could have prevented that. You people seem so well versed in military matters yet I doubt any of you have served a day.

"nuf" said
 
Don't try to defend him by moving the goalposts or excusing the actions of this administration. The X he posted tried to make a point that four times the amount of servicemen and women died during Trump's presidency versus the current administration. As seemingly always, it was completely out of context because Trump's administration was four year's time of full blown war versus eight months of withdrawing after we had already agreed with the enemy that we were leaving. The stat is worthless to anyone except fanboys. Clearly, you are one.
But, but, but He's a true Republican. He's a true dip shit is what he is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2
But, but, but He's a true Republican. He's a true dip shit is what he is.
Who required his country come looking for him and demand he be a man and help out stateside during war. Just like he had to be told to get off his ass and clean up aisle 3 when homeless took a dump on the floor of the convenient store where he worked.
 
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Trying to act all tough guy doesn't change the facts or reality of the situation. Nor does it make you more qualified to give an opinion just because you were some low level grunt. Unless you were serving in some really high leadership role with thousands of people under your command whose lives were at stake, it doesn't make your opinion any more informed or valid than anyone else's. The level of responsibility and politics of your decisions don't come into play until one is at a very high level.

Now, that being said, I don't know your full background, only what's been implied. If you did serve, either due to the draft or voluntarily, thank you for that. It is truly appreciated. I would only ask that you limit your claims about your service to what you really did. You know, don't act like you served for two and half decades when it was actually less than a year's time and don't act like you fought in an actual war when you just got to go to a country that people normally pay all kinds of big bucks to see. Service is to be honored, it's to be appreciated, and we are all the benefactors of that sacrifice. But that only extends to one's actual service, not their pretend claims that simply advance their career and agenda.

One last thing, the respect for those that have served exponentially grows if they have paid the ultimate sacrifice. You can argue all day long about what happened to cause Abby Gate, but the way those families have been treated by Joe and particularly Ms. Harris is galling.
 
Trying to act all tough guy doesn't change the facts or reality of the situation. Nor does it make you more qualified to give an opinion just because you were some low level grunt. Unless you were serving in some really high leadership role with thousands of people under your command whose lives were at stake, it doesn't make your opinion any more informed or valid than anyone else's. The level of responsibility and politics of your decisions don't come into play until one is at a very high level.

Now, that being said, I don't know your full background, only what's been implied. If you did serve, either due to the draft or voluntarily, thank you for that. It is truly appreciated. g.
I don't think I have ever uttered one word about what I did in the military, I did serve, but I don't remember ever talking about it. What have I implied?
 
  • Like
Reactions: heelbent
One last thing, the respect for those that have served exponentially grows if they have paid the ultimate sacrifice. You can argue all day long about what happened to cause Abby Gate, but the way those families have been treated by Joe and particularly Ms. Harris is galling.
you'll be hearing about this. You'll be hearing crickets, I mean..
 
Our board lefties can't help themselves. Somehow in a little over a month, she goes from the worst VP ever, the left wanting her replaced on the ticket, to Obama Lite. The Dem Party which includes the mainstream media are trying to gaslight the entire country. Not to mention Tampon Tim who's own brother says don't vote for them.
And, why lie about working at Mickey Dee's? Pretty pathetic.
She’s lying about working at mcd’s? I haven’t heard that
 
I don't think I have ever uttered one word about what I did in the military, I did serve, but I don't remember ever talking about it. What have I implied?
well, Ricky Retardo, let me help your reading comprehension-challenged ass out here. Your statement implies that you served in the military and that therefor you have some authority to speak on military matters. You suggested that those you oppose probably did NOT serve in the military and so therefor wouldn't understand an incident involving the military. That puts you in an assumed position of being knowledgeable of military operations yourself and therefor more qualified to judge the incident in question as well as those who question it.

Now that I've explained your own words to you, maybe you'll understand that the responses are perfectly appropriate. But probably you won't. I'm betting you won't.

I suggest you read the link I provided to the State Department's review of the entire fiasco and get back to us.


ETA; and while I'm at it, let me point out to your dumb ass that your claim to being super-Republican holds up as long as you paint yourself only as an anti-Trumper. But when you become a Biden apologist (given that democrat Biden has been a disaster of a president), your claim goes up in smoke.
 
Last edited:
That puts you in an assumed position of being knowledgeable of military operations yourself and therefor more qualified to judge the incident in question as well as those who question it.
I don't consider you people qualified to judge any subject, military or not.
 
But, it's part of the reason that Trump moved to get us out of there and didn't take us into any other wars around the world.
That's not entirely true. What about the 59 Tomahawk missiles launched at Syria in 2017 and again in 2018? What about the airstrikes Trump ordered for Somalia and Iraq? And perhaps most egregious of all, in 2018 Trump was complicit for helping the Saudi-led genocide in Yemen that killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians and resulted in famine in that country. This included bypassing Congress to get weapons to Saudi Arabia and UAE.

Talk about revisionist history . . .
 
That's not entirely true. What about the 59 Tomahawk missiles launched at Syria in 2017 and again in 2018? What about the airstrikes Trump ordered for Somalia and Iraq? And perhaps most egregious of all, in 2018 Trump was complicit for helping the Saudi-led genocide in Yemen that killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians and resulted in famine in that country. This included bypassing Congress to get weapons to Saudi Arabia and UAE.

Talk about revisionist history . . .
targeted military operations do not equate to war. Duh. And God forbid a president doesn't wait for congressional approval to strike armed and dangerous targets while they ARE targets. Who ever heard of a president doing that? I mean, acting like that's his job and all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2
The genocide in Yemen was part on an ongoing civil war in that country. The strikes against Syria occurred as part of the Syrian Civil War.
and?

But, it's part of the reason that Trump moved to get us out of there and didn't take us into any other wars around the world. He was president for four full years of Afghanistan.
targeted military operations do not equate to war.

that we engaged an enemy who was in a war is not saying that WE were AT war. Military operations become necessary or otherwise warranted regardless of whether a war is going on or not. Every time there is a military operation does not signify that we are at war. That's why the term 'police action' was coined, to address that sort of operation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2
I don’t have the time or patience to read this “what is war” semantics debate. I’ll declare that our foreign policy should be to discourage wars. But also to make it known that if a war in Bumf*ck, Middle East or anywhere else breaks out, you better keep that shit over there. If it inconveniences the U.S. or f*cks with our economy in any way, we will get involved on whatever side benefits our country the most and leave the opposition in shambles. Basically, FAFO. I believe this is Trump’s position for the most part.
 
  • Love
Reactions: nctransplant
that we engaged an enemy who was in a war is not saying that WE were AT war. Military operations become necessary or otherwise warranted regardless of whether a war is going on or not. Every time there is a military operation does not signify that we are at war. That's why the term 'police action' was coined, to address that sort of operation.
You're splitting hairs over semantics like you always do. I would argue that airstrikes on multiple occasions is very much "taking us into other wars around the world," which isn't the same as being at war with countries around the world. Targeted military operations aren't necessarily a declaration of war, but they certainly equate with warlike involvement.
 
I’ll declare that our foreign policy should be to discourage wars. But also to make it known that if a war in Bumf*ck, Middle East or anywhere else breaks out, you better keep that shit over there.
I agree. It sounds like @pooponduke is making the claim that when Donald Trump was in office he neglected this philosophy and refused to involve the U.S. in military operations or involvement beyond Afghanistan which is far from the truth.

(As for @bluetoe, he's slurping so loud I can't figure out what argument he's trying to make.)
 
Last edited:
(As for @bluetoe, he's slurping so loud I can't figure out what argument he's trying to make.)
translation...'He thoroughly kicked my ass again, and this lame response is all I'm left with. As usual.'

eta; And maybe I'm wrong, but keeping it over there is @gunslingerdick 's point, and that is exactly why military operations against terrorist organizations are carried out. Carrying out such military operations do not constitute being in a war....unless of course you mean the somewhat cliched 'war on terror'.
 
Last edited:
translation...'He thoroughly kicked my ass again, and this lame response is all I'm left with. As usual.'

eta; And maybe I'm wrong, but keeping it over there is @gunslingerdick 's point, and that is exactly why military operations against terrorist organizations are carried out. Carrying out such military operations do not constitute being in a war....unless of course you mean the somewhat cliched 'war on terror'.
Translation: Slurp, slurp, slurp . . .
 
You're splitting hairs over semantics like you always do. I would argue that airstrikes on multiple occasions is very much "taking us into other wars around the world," which isn't the same as being at war with countries around the world. Targeted military operations aren't necessarily a declaration of war, but they certainly equate with warlike involvement.
I knew you would retreat into the semantics argument because you always do As I have said before, most arguments end up being over semantics.

Of course you can conveniently define war or anything else however it fits your agenda as you want to do here, but you know that with Trump, we were not in a war as generally considered. I am very confident that any reasonable person would summarize by agreeing that Trump kept us out of war. I am lol'ing at your 'warlike' semantic twist.

My semantics represent realism I already said that conducting a military operation where a war is going on is not in and of itself being IN that war, and you are agreeing with that while trying to present as if you are not. LOL again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2
No employment record nor did she list it on her resumes.
The resume for professional jobs didn't list mcdonald's? Did she also leave off watering her neighbors plants and feeding their cat?

And what employment records? The parent corp (wouldn't have it) or the individual franchise from the 80's?

Ya'll are f'ckin hilarious.
 
doesn't that say that they have 'unwittingly' been working for a Russian influence operation? How is that worse than half-wittedly but purposely peddling influence?
Several were aware. Two maybe were not aware who their $/instructions were.


These are huge right-wing influencers... paid by and operating for Russian intelligence.
 
"Nebraska Walz's for Trump"

Walz's, is that incorrect? Wouldn't it be Walzes for Trump?

Johnson = Johnsons for Trump, Johnson's.
Jones = Joneses for Trump, not Jones's

More self-owning from maga idiots.
Your sources find you to be incorrect...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/w...politics-in-spotlight-at-minnesota-state-fair

https://www.npr.org/2024/08/15/nx-s...s-the-apostrophe-debate-takes-the-stage-today

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/04/politics/jeff-walz-criticism-brother-policies/index.html
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT