╌>

Biden's Iran Policy

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  robert-in-ohio  •  3 weeks ago  •  282 comments

By:    Kevin Liptak

Biden's Iran Policy
Biden warns, 'If you harm an American, we will respond' after US strikes Iran-backed militias in Iraq, Syria", Joe Biden

alg020124dAPC-800x0.jpg

Can Biden's policy on Iran be clearly defined by this meme?


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


 

President Joe Biden ’s decision to   strike 85 targets in Iraq and Syria   on Friday in response to the death of three American soldiers last weekend amounted to a middle ground: short of a direct strike inside Iran, which would almost certainly spark a wider war, but still more expansive than any action the US has taken so far against the groups it accuses of destabilizing the region.

There is little belief inside the American government that Biden’s actions will completely shut down the constellation of Iranian proxy groups that have been responsible for escalating attacks on American bases and commercial shipping lanes in the Red Sea. A longer-term solution remains elusive, as Biden enters a reelection year while also pursuing a broad diplomatic breakthrough he hopes could transform the larger region.

Whether the 125 precision-guided missiles fired over 30 minutes Friday night will have the effect of preventing further attacks on Americans is a question officials aren’t yet ready to answer.


Red Box Rules

Rip Biden, Blame it on Trump, Rip Iran but try to be civil while doing so and do not attack other NT members

Enjoy


 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
1  seeder  Robert in Ohio    3 weeks ago

How many more Americans must die before the U.S. addresses the real issue

256

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Robert in Ohio @1    3 weeks ago

I'm looking forward to the possible opportunity of permanently solving some problems after the next election is called.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.1  bugsy  replied to  devangelical @1.1    3 weeks ago

Me too. Hopefully the beginning of the eradication of liberalism will begin.

That ideology is the true danger to this country.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @1.1    3 weeks ago
I'm looking forward to the possible opportunity of permanently solving some problems after the next election is called.

If true, then I encourage you to vote for someone other than Trump and Biden.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.2    3 weeks ago

If Biden v Trump, who can we vote for who has a chance to win and thus solve problems?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.3    3 weeks ago

Come on. we have been all through this repeatedly.

But if either Trump or Biden COULD solve problems, perhaps we wouldn't have so many.

I see no point whatsoever in voting for a person with a horrible track record and simply refuse to do so because I know it hurts the country.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.4    3 weeks ago

You suggest that we should vote for someone other than Biden or Trump if those are the nominees.

Thus I asked who we can vote for who has a chance to win and thus solve problems.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.5    3 weeks ago

was my answer when you have asked previously not clear?

Thinking that Trump or Biden is the answer is delusional thinking.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
1.1.7  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.4    3 weeks ago

It seems  more than half the country does not want either one. If they voted for who they thought would be best for the country and not vote for one just to keep the other guy out we would break that cycle sooner rather than later. Even if a third candidate did not win this time there is a chance the 2 main parties would be put on notice that they better start nominating people that do more than pander to the extreme.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.7    3 weeks ago

Thanks for exhibiting some common sense.

If someone does a bad job, chances are they will continue to do it poorly.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
1.1.9  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.6    3 weeks ago

If you listen to the pundits the choice is either the end of democracy or a country invaded and driven into the ground.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.9    3 weeks ago

Guess I am not that cynical.

Of course, I never felt that the government of the US was going to be overthrown, either, despite the mass hysteria.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.7    3 weeks ago

You nailed the problem I have with many voters. Too many interested in sticking it to someone and too few willing to do whats right.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
1.1.12  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.10    3 weeks ago

You mean you don't think a couple hundred knuckleheads led by a guy with a fred Flintstone grand poobah hat could end democracy as we know it?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.6    3 weeks ago

You cannot name one person who could win the election and thus solve problems?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
1.1.14  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.11    3 weeks ago

The rationalization is mind boggling.  I would rather hear people say they are voting for someone because they like their policies. I might not agree but I respect the choice.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.13    3 weeks ago

I can, and more importantly, HAVE.

I see no need to answer the same questions over and over when it is clear the answers aren't read or acknowledged.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.12    3 weeks ago

No, I never thought democracy was at stake from a small bunch of idiots, many unarmed.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.5    3 weeks ago
You suggest that we should vote for someone other than Biden or Trump if those are the nominees.

No, I said what I am going to do.

you do whatever it is you want.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.15    3 weeks ago

Who?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
1.1.19  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.8    3 weeks ago
If someone does a bad job, chances are they will continue to do it poorly.

Yep, yet some will end up voting for someone they have no faith will do a good job.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.18    3 weeks ago

please stop asking the same question asked and answered previously, thanks.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.19    3 weeks ago

and some will vote for someone they KNOW will do a bad job.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
1.1.22  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.21    3 weeks ago

Democracy at work.  At least if I had a student loan paid off I could  say my vote was paid for, but alas I  was one of the people that figured I would have to pay it back on my own.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.23  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.20    3 weeks ago

You clearly have no answer and instead of admitting this,  play the same tired game of claiming you already answered.

If Trump v Biden, there is no third person who could win the presidency in 2024 and thus solve problems as you suggested.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.24  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.23    3 weeks ago

you clearly won't accept an answer.

I see no need to answer the same questions over and over when it is clear the answers aren't read or acknowledged.

thank you, but no point in asking yet again.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.25  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.24    3 weeks ago

I did not ask you anything in my last comment.   I made a claim:

If Trump v Biden, there is no third person who could win the presidency in 2024 and thus solve problems as you suggested.

Prove me wrong.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.19    3 weeks ago
Yep, yet some will end up voting for someone they have no faith will do a good job.

That's what gets me. The track records for both leading candidates is there to see.

I couldn't drink enough KoolAid to ever vote for one of the clowns 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.27  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.25    3 weeks ago

not interested.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
1.1.28  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.26    3 weeks ago

Yep.  If you like them, vote for them.  If you don't like them don't vote for them., vote for whomever you feel is the best candidate.

Novel concept.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.29  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.27    3 weeks ago

Of course you cannot prove me wrong.

If Trump v Biden, there is no third person who could win the presidency in 2024 and thus solve problems as you suggested.

You claim to have offered this mystery person yet it is obvious that you have not because you cannot.   Nobody can, and anyone with even basic knowledge of politics knows this.

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
1.1.30  George  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.29    3 weeks ago

Dead horse by five lengths.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.31  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.28    3 weeks ago

That's how I'm doing it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.32  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.29    3 weeks ago
Of course you cannot prove me wrong

and here i figured you'd know what "not interested" means. 

I have answered you multiple times but you want to pretend I haven't. I am not playing that childish game with you, so best drop it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.33  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.28    3 weeks ago
Novel concept.

Very clearly.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.34  Texan1211  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.31    3 weeks ago

Smart man.

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
1.1.35  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.29    3 weeks ago
thus solve problems as you suggested.

Out of curiosity, do you think that anyone involved in running for PotUS in 2024 is capable of that?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.36  Texan1211  replied to  GregTx @1.1.35    3 weeks ago

He has stated he would vote for Haley IF she is the nominee.

And vote for Biden if it is Trump. vs. Biden.

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
1.1.37  GregTx  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.36    3 weeks ago

Yes I'm aware. Do you think he understood the context of 1.1 in this thread?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.38  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.13    3 weeks ago
You cannot name one person who could win the election and thus solve problems?

I suppose if you could we would have fewer problems here in the US.

I know the track records of the frontrunners and have no confidence they can figure a way out of a wet paper bag.

Proof is before us.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.39  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @1.1.35    3 weeks ago

Neither to my satisfaction.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.40  Texan1211  replied to  GregTx @1.1.37    3 weeks ago

Not at all.

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
1.1.41  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.39    3 weeks ago

And yet you would vote for one of them?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.42  Texan1211  replied to  GregTx @1.1.41    3 weeks ago

yes. if they are the candidates, he has committed to Biden.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
1.1.43  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.36    3 weeks ago
And vote for Biden if it is Trump. vs. Biden.

And all our problems are solved by the same guy that created them.  Cool

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.44  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.43    3 weeks ago
And all our problems are solved by the same guy that created them.  Cool

Well, to be fair, all the problems weren't created by Biden.

But to think he can solve the problems if only he gets reelected is some messed up thinking, and I use the term thinking very loosely here.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
1.1.45  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.44    3 weeks ago

He has only been in government for 50 years, I guess another 4 is what he needs

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.46  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.45    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.47  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.38    3 weeks ago

Lots of words but no name.

You clearly have not provided a name before as evidenced by your inability to do so now.

Nobody can provide such a name and thus in a Biden v Trump race there is no way to vote for someone who could win the presidency and thus be empowered to solve problems as you suggested.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.48  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.47    3 weeks ago

I will attempt to explain my position one last time to you.

You  can vote for a poodle for all I care.

I will vote for someone capable.

I do NOT consider the frontrunners capable, and hence WILL NOT BE VOTING FOR ONE OF THEM  as both have exhibited they are not fit for office.

I really can not make it any simpler to understand than that but for God's sake don't tell me I haven't answered you.

why don't you supply a name???

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
1.1.49  Right Down the Center  replied to  GregTx @1.1.41    3 weeks ago

Apparently.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.50  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.47    3 weeks ago

Way I see it we all are on step 40 of a 500 step trip, and a lot can happen in the next 9 months.

I'm keeping in mind the conventions usually holds a surprise AND the usual Oct surprise that attempts to swing an election.

Trump or Biden or both can keel over dead in the next few months, someone could step in at the last moment and be "drafted" by either party.

Let's not forget the usual crop of perennial third party candidates that always shows up ( West, Stein? Someone else? Tiger king anyone?).

Until theNov ballot is formalized and ready for use, all the discussion so far has been partisan bullshit with an air of a pig stye.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
1.1.51  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.48    3 weeks ago
You  can vote for a poodle for all I care.

il_1080xN.3281569300_gfcw.jpg

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.52  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.50    3 weeks ago

Yes it might not be Trump v Biden.

That is why I included “if Biden v Trump”.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.53  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.48    3 weeks ago
why don't you supply a name???

Because I have repeatedly stated that there is no-one who meets your criteria.

You cannot name a person who meets your criteria so you use dishonest tactics like the strawman you just posted.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.54  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.52    3 weeks ago

Doesn't matter if it is or isn't them, people will use their own yardsticks and methods to either choose or disqualify any candidate.

What most are usually to polite to do is tell someone that disagrees , that that person's opinion doesn't matter.

Personally I have already disqualified a couple of the candidates, but it's early like I said , and the final ballot is not formalized, once it is I'll make a choice that I think is one I can live with and one in the best interests of the country .

I would also caution someone about asking the who question, I have already decided my answer will be ," None of YOUR fucking business."

end of discussion at that point.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
1.1.55  Right Down the Center  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.54    3 weeks ago

people will use their own yardsticks and methods to either choose or disqualify any candidate.

Well that just makes way too much sense.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.56  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.53    3 weeks ago

cease with the whole dishonest crap.

you know where I stand, I know where you stand, completely senseless to keep rehashing shit we have gone thru repeatedly. 

I will no longer answer  a question asked and answered again.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.57  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.54    3 weeks ago
I would also caution someone about asking the who question, I have already decidedmyanswer will be ," None of YOUR fucking business."

Because you have no answer.   Nobody does.

If Biden v. Trump in 2024, one of those two will be elected PotUS.   There is no third person who could win the presidency.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.58  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.57    3 weeks ago

that doesn't mean everyone has to vote for either idiot.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.59  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.56    3 weeks ago

You have not answered the question even once.

You cannot possibly answer the question.   Nobody can.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.60  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.58    3 weeks ago

Not the point.

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
1.1.61  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.52    3 weeks ago
Yes it might not be Trump v Biden.

How much weight do you really give that?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.62  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @1.1.61    3 weeks ago

Weight?   Are you asking how likely it will NOT be Biden v Trump?

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
1.1.63  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.62    3 weeks ago

Yes, in your opinion of course. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.64  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @1.1.63    3 weeks ago

I am not going to try to quantify that.   The impact of Trump being convicted (a possibility) is unpredictable.   

Other than that and health reasons, Biden v. Trump seems inevitable.

What is your opinion?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.65  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.59    3 weeks ago

I have answered repeatedly.

whether you choose to acknowledge or admit it is totally irrelevant to me at this point.

I told you I would be voting 3rd party or writing someone in.

I will not vote for one incompetent clown just so the other incompetent clown doesn't win as I feel that is harmful to the country.

Like I said, I don't care if you vote for a damn poodle.

Why this incessant interest in my vote anyway?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.67  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.60    3 weeks ago

whatever.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.68  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.65    3 weeks ago

None of the ‘answers’ in your post are for the question asked.   

Who is the person other than Trump or Biden —given a Biden v Trump race— who could win the presidency in 2024 and solve the problems you alluded to?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
1.1.69  1stwarrior  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.68    3 weeks ago

Better yet - why can't/won't any of you discuss the topic, which is "Biden's Iran Policy".

[Deleted]

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
1.1.70  George  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.69    3 weeks ago

But we are still beating a dead horse!

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.71  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.68    3 weeks ago

You want 1name ?

Setting aside parties ,politics and a crapton of other shit?

One person that could POSSIBLY run against both mentioned and have a good chance of winning.

Michelle Obama.

Not that I would vote for her, but she would be the one I would say would beat both the others.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.72  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.68    3 weeks ago

I gave you an answer. 

your choice is to accept it or not, but no point at all in badgering me to get some answer you personally find acceptable because I am not here for that.

I will not vote for Biden or Trump under any circumstances.

I will not give up my integrity by voting for someone I know isn't fit to serve.

And if you think Biden is the answer, where have you been the last 3 years??

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
1.1.73  1stwarrior  replied to  George @1.1.70    3 weeks ago

Best thing that happens on this site lately - nothing new - all same old rehashed shyte.

256

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.74  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.71    3 weeks ago

Michelle Obama is not running.   If she were, that would be a decent name.   I too would have offered that.  Actually, I would have asked Texan if he is then going to vote for Michelle.  Oprah too, if we include people who are not running.

But as of now, she is not available except as a write in.

Also, per the scenario, she would have to run third party since the scenario is Biden v Trump.

If that were the case, I think Michelle might wind up splitting the D vote and handing the presidency to Trump.


But for those voting for someone in 2024 with a Biden v Trump contest who could solve problems, there is nobody to vote for who could win the presidency.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.75  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.74    3 weeks ago

You asked for one name that could take on both, that's the name.

I don't think she would split the Dem vote even as an Indy she would outright take All the Dem votes if a candidate and Dems make a truthful comparison , Biden and the last 3 years of folly would die on the vine from lack of support.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.76  Texan1211  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.75    3 weeks ago
Dems make a truthful comparison , Biden and the last 3 years of folly would die on the vine from lack of support.

Might be quite the task getting Democrats off Joe Biden when democracy is at stake and all.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.77  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.74    3 weeks ago
Actually, I would have asked Texan if he is then going to vote for Michelle.  Oprah too, if we include people who are not running.

Why the profound interest in my little old vote?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.78  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.75    3 weeks ago

A key qualification is that this name could win.   Michelle is not a candidate.   Do you believe she could win as a writein?

I even took your scenario and agreed with qualification.  I would ask that you at least recognize the scenario I presented.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.79  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.78    3 weeks ago

I went back and looked, no where did I see the person had to be an actual candidate or even interested in running, the name as far as I am concerned stands,with no moving of goalposts after the fact.

Do I think she could win if she ran? Hands down.

As a write in ?same difference ,hands down.

And it wouldn't be the first time the people of any party decided the party have moved away from them, and in that case, they have no obligation to said party and they can and will vote for those that they think have the same interests and concerns,something I see very lacking in today's stated political policies.

What I find interesting is trump was suppose to get us in a war if elected. Sometime during his term, Bidens got us almost but not quite involved in 2 with a 3rd on the back burner with china over Taiwan, if I were the Taiwanese I would be shitting pyramid sized bricks about if I trusted the current admin or not.

With that ,I'm going to bed. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.80  Sparty On  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.69    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.81  Sparty On  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.71    3 weeks ago
Michelle Obama.

Spot on.    Which speaks to the “intellect” of those who would vote for her.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.82  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.79    3 weeks ago

You did not see where I stated that the individual had to have a chance to win?   Without that qualification there would be plenty of names one can offer.   The question would be rather pointless.

It started here:

TiG@1.1.3If Biden v Trump, who can we vote for who has a chance to win and thus solve problems?

… and was repeated and paraphrased many times in the thread.

The context too was about getting someone in office (other than Trump or Biden) who could solve problems.   So if Biden v Trump we are talking about someone else who could realistically be elected to the presidency in 2024.

Michelle is not a candidate.   If she were to become a candidate, I would agree with you, as noted.   But I repeat my qualification that her necessarily running third party (since the scenario has Biden as the D) would likely give the presidency to Trump.

As for write-in, I do not see anyone ever winning the presidency as a write-in candidate.

Now if we change the scenario to Michelle v Trump, Michelle wins easily.   Too bad the Ds cannot seem to pull that off.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
1.1.83  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.59    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
1.1.84  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.82    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
1.1.85  George  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.81    3 weeks ago

Absolutely amazing isn't it? Lets just vote for some random former first lady who has no accomplishments and never held a political office or ran a business,  To me that is the pinnacle of ignorance. At least Hillary had the qualifications. 

The democrat bench must be barren if we are down to selecting former first lady's, we zero qualifications.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.86  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.57    3 weeks ago

Your correct that as of right now, I can't say who I will vote for come Nov , but it is still early in the process. I will wait and see what comes out of the parties conventions during the summer. I will also wait and see what the final Nov ballot offers for choices across the spectrum and board.

I CAN say who I am not voting for if I choose, but it isn't anyone's business whom I have eliminated or why. That I will for the most part keep to myself. And I am highly unlikely to change my mind once I have eliminated someone.

When it comes to naming a person who could beat either of the 2 parties candidates, we discussed this on a different article, the person would need to have major national name recognition, be more or less real scandal free, and have to have a majority appeal to the voters and be willing to take on the task.

One can accept or reject this as they see fit, others opinions do not matter in this case.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.87  TᵢG  replied to  George @1.1.85    3 weeks ago

I agree that Michelle has no experience for the job.   But much of the electorate votes like this were a popularity contest.

The Trump phenomenon has illustrated that picking the best person for the job is not the collective priority.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.88  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.82    3 weeks ago

Michelle Obama wholeheartedly supports the reelection of President Biden so it follows that those who would likely vote for her over Trump will vote for President Biden in November.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.1.89  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JBB @1.1.88    3 weeks ago
Michelle Obama wholeheartedly supports the reelection of President Biden

Another reason to disregard both her thoughts of candidacy and her opinion.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.90  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.87    3 weeks ago

The idea that Michelle Obama has no experience is laughable. After the travesty of 2016 "experience" is no longer a requirement. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.91  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.57    3 weeks ago
Because you have no answer.   Nobody does.

Then I will consider the question to be extremely STUPID.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.92  JohnRussell  replied to  George @1.1.85    3 weeks ago

Donald Trump was a game show host and a crooked businessman when he was elected. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.93  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.90    3 weeks ago
The idea that Michelle Obama has no experience is laughable.

Okay, then prove it. Show us all her resume of political experience.

Being a wife of a politician doesn't really count as experience.

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
1.1.94  George  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.90    3 weeks ago

She has no executive expienece, we would have better luck just appointing a fortune 500 CEO, if anyone thinks Michelle Obama is qualified to be president they are fucking morons. She is as qualified as Melania trump. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.95  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.92    3 weeks ago
Donald Trump was a game show host and a crooked businessman when he was elected. 

And Joe Biden was a doddering old fool when elected.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.96  JohnRussell  replied to  George @1.1.94    3 weeks ago
She has no executive expienece,

Who gives a fuck ?  Donald Trump has no experience in telling the truth, and didnt in 2016 either. 

Michelle Obama would embarrass the living shit out of Trump on a debate stage. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.97  JBB  replied to  George @1.1.94    3 weeks ago

Michelle is eligible and Melania is not based on birthright...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.98  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @1.1.97    3 weeks ago

There are marked differences between eligibility and qualifications.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.99  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.93    3 weeks ago

" After the travesty of 2016 "experience" is no longer a requirement. "

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.100  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.99    3 weeks ago

So you are saying Michelle has zero experience and you are a-ok with that.

Doesn't matter anyway, I know you'll be voting for Biden.

Joe has over 40 years in government and still sucks, so experience can certainly be overrated.

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
1.1.101  George  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.100    3 weeks ago

Nancy P was right, some people would vote for a bucket of warm piss to drink if it had a D after it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.102  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.100    3 weeks ago

For christs sake, stop babbling. 

Trump was a celebrity birther, and that is why he was nominated in 2016. His only "experience" was in conning people out of their money. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.103  Texan1211  replied to  George @1.1.101    3 weeks ago
Nancy P was right,

Even a broke clock is right twice a day!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.104  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.91    3 weeks ago

You claimed to have an answer.   

Mark offered Michelle.   You reject that but refuse to offer your (claimed) suggestion for who, in a Biden v Trump race, could wrestle the presidency from those two.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.105  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.99    3 weeks ago

Character, empathy, honesty, integrity, responsibility, patriotism, etc. do not seem to matter either.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.106  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.104    3 weeks ago
You claimed to have an answer.   

You claim there is no answer possible, but insist on repeatedly asking for an answer you claim is impossible, so here we are.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
1.1.107  afrayedknot  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.105    3 weeks ago

“Character, empathy, honesty, integrity, responsibility, patriotism, etc. do not seem to matter either.”

Pick just one attribute that should define a presidential candidate…that the presumptive gop nominee is demonstrably devoid of any says less about him and more about the incessant partisanship plaguing all aspects of our political system. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.108  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.105    3 weeks ago
Character, empathy, honesty, integrity, responsibility, patriotism, etc. do not seem to matter either.

Certainly not to Trump or Biden voters.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.109  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.104    3 weeks ago
You reject that

Stop making stuff up when I don't say what you claim.

Please QUOTE me or rescind the false claim.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.110  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.106    3 weeks ago

I stated my position and gave a supporting  argument.  You made a claim that you have at least one person who could win the presidency from Biden v Trump in 2024 yet refuse to name the individual.

You insist you have provided this name but instead of simply stating same here you waste countless words in evasive tactics.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.111  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.106    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.112  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.110    3 weeks ago

You insist on an answer you claim doesn't exist.

That is extremely illogical.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.113  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.111    3 weeks ago
There is a possible answer. 

yes.

 You just haven't given the one this poster WANTS to hear so they are going to badger you over several articles about it. 

I can't dispute that.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.114  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.57    3 weeks ago

"Because you have no answer"

AWESOME!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.115  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.109    3 weeks ago
Texan@1.1.93 - Okay, then prove it. Show us all her [Michelle] resume of political experience.

Being a wife of a politician doesn't really count as experience.

Is this you supporting or rejecting Michelle as a candidate who could win and solve problems to your liking?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.116  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.90    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.117  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.112    3 weeks ago

You claim to have an answer.

I claim there is none.

You deflect … poorly … and refuse to name this mystery person who will prove me wrong.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.118  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.115    3 weeks ago

I simply asked you to quote me rejecting her as you CLAIMED.

may I expect it soon?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.119  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.117    3 weeks ago
I claim there is none.

Then I am sure you are prepared to give me the "logic" involved in insisting on an answer you claim does not exist. 

Your continued false claims are trifling nonsense.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.120  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.115    3 weeks ago
Is this you supporting or rejecting Michelle as a candidate who could win and solve problems to your liking?

Neither.

how is that not clear to you after reading and quoting me??

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.121  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.115    3 weeks ago

Will you at least concede that being an ivy league lawyer is a headstart as a qualification compared with nude model?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
1.1.122  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.90    3 weeks ago
The idea that Michelle Obama has no experience is laughable. After the travesty of 2016 "experience" is no longer a requirement. 

So the same people crying in 2016 that Trump should not be elected because he was not experienced are saying Michelle doesn't need experience because Trump won.  Seems they must think Trump did a great job if experience is no longer an important qualification to be president.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.123  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.122    3 weeks ago

Is it just me, or does everything always revolve around one Donald J. Trump around here?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.124  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.122    3 weeks ago

Circular "logic"--and I use that term VERY loosely!

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
1.1.125  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.99    3 weeks ago

Because Donald was such a great president and he had no experience it shows that experience is no longer a requirement?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.126  JBB  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.122    3 weeks ago

No, along with Michelle Obama they support President Biden!

And, so do the Reagans, Bushes, Cheneys and the Romneys...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.127  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @1.1.126    3 weeks ago
No, along with Michelle Obama they support President Biden! And, so do the Reagans, Bushes, Cheneys and the Romneys...

Please relate something in that to what he said.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
1.1.128  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.123    3 weeks ago

Well Trump is the root of all evil since time began so..............

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
1.1.129  Right Down the Center  replied to  JBB @1.1.126    3 weeks ago

That has nothing to do with what I posted and your segue leaves alot to be desired.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.130  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.128    3 weeks ago
Well Trump is the root of all evil since time began so......

Damn miracle America has survived!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.131  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.127    3 weeks ago

It relates as I said, "No". She is wrong about what she said...

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.132  JBB  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.129    3 weeks ago

Because what you said was all wrong and total bullshit...

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
1.1.133  Right Down the Center  replied to  JBB @1.1.131    3 weeks ago

Who is "She" and what did "she" say?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.134  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @1.1.131    3 weeks ago
It relates as I said, "No". She is wrong about what she said...

Wrong.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.135  JBB  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.133    3 weeks ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.136  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.102    3 weeks ago
For christs sake, stop babbling.

Start READING.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.1.137  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.69    3 weeks ago

Biden has a Iran policy?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.138  Texan1211  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.137    3 weeks ago
Biden has a Iran policy?

Right next to his border policy.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.1.139  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.105    3 weeks ago

"Character, empathy, honesty, integrity, responsibility, patriotism, etc. do not seem to matter either."

Perhaps you're right. Biden has none of those qualities, yet was elected handily
 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.1.140  MrFrost  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.87    3 weeks ago
I agree that Michelle has no experience for the job.

I disagree, she was married to the POTUS for 8 years. She is a smart lady, I am sure she picked up a thing or two...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.141  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.140    3 weeks ago
I disagree, she was married to the POTUS for 8 years. She is a smart lady, I am sure she picked up a thing or two..

So you'd be comfortable with going to the spouse of a doctor to perform surgery on you?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.142  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.139    3 weeks ago
Perhaps you're right. Biden has none of those qualities, yet was elected handily

Good point.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
1.1.143  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.141    3 weeks ago

Of course, just thing what he/she/they would have learned from spousal pillow talk.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.144  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.143    3 weeks ago

I shudder at the thought.

Thanks a lot, dude, now I owe you one.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.1.145  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.138    3 weeks ago

Amen to that!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.146  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @1.1.121    3 weeks ago

Yes, Michelle is more qualified than Melania.

Why not engage those bad-mouthing Michelle?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

One can only conclude you are much more comfortable with Trump returning than you are with Biden being re-elected. 

I watched the recent Frontline documentary on Trumps involvement in the scheme to subvert the 2020 election results. It is a 2 1/2 hour comprehensive summary of the evidence against  Trump in that regard. The evidence is crystal clear, Trump betrayed his oath of office and is a traitor. 

We need to stop the national insanity of the pretense that Trump is an acceptable alternative for president. Every American should be a never Trumper, and then we would get a new Republican candidate. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago
Robert come out and say you are a conservative Republican and stop with this charade that you are some sort of moderate. Every single article you have seeded here since you came back has an element of an attack on Joe Biden, and you have said next to nothing about Trump. 

Interesting, I have managed to read several times where he has stated he wouldn't be voting for either loser (that is Biden and Trump, btw). 

Does talking about Trump 24/7 change anything at all?

IF one is TRULY interested in stopping the insanity, perhaps an excellent place to start would be to find someone decent to vote for. That would leave out Trump and Biden, and he has already done that, have you?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    3 weeks ago

Then throw Trump off the ballot and out of the Republican Party, after that happens it is more likely than not than Biden will stand down. Trump wont drop out if Biden is gone but Biden might drop out if Trump is gone. In any case the Republicans would have a candidate that is not a known traitor to the country he claims to be trying to lead. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
2.1.2  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    3 weeks ago
That would leave out Trump and Biden, and he has already done that, have you?

So in other words, no.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
2.1.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    3 weeks ago
Then throw Trump off the ballot

How?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.2    3 weeks ago

I dont do "bothsidesism". I would rather not have a second Biden term, but if it is necessary to keep the traitor out of office than so be it. 

The evidence that Trump plotted to be unconstitutionally and illegally kept in office is overwhelming, and much of that evidence of that comes directly from the mouths of Republicans who worked in the White House or in the Trump administration. And it is on video.  Enough of this utter nonsense claiming that the J 6 committee was a witch hunt or that Jack Smith has a vendetta against Trump.  This shit has gone way more than far enough already. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    3 weeks ago
Then throw Trump off the ballot and out of the Republican Party,

Well, looky here, JR, Robert and I don't control who is a member of the GOP any more than you control who is a Democrat, so that "suggestion" is as dumb as a box of rocks.

after that happens it is more likely than not than Biden will stand down.

Yeah, yeah, just like when Biden said he was just a bridge to the younger Democrats coming into leadership roles. Blaming Trump for Biden running is just stupid.

You vote for the loser Biden if you choose to.

I will vote for someone who I think will do a good job for America.

I won't settle for "the lesser of two evils" and think I am "saving democracy" by doing so.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.4    3 weeks ago
I would rather not have a second Biden term, but if it is necessary to keep the traitor out of office than so be it. 

Hard to believe based on what I see after the nonstop Trump attacks and cheerleading for Biden.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
2.1.7  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.4    3 weeks ago

The question has nothing to do with "bothsidesism". It was a simple question. Robert (as well as I) have already stated that he will not vote for Trump or Biden as neither one of them is worthy of his vote in his opinion. The question was simply, why won't you also not vote for either Trump or Biden. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.7    3 weeks ago
The question was simply, why won't you also not vote for either Trump or Biden

Some folks are so scared of Trump they are willing to vote for Biden even when they know he has failed in many things. They justify their vote by thinking they are saving American democracy!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.7    3 weeks ago

LOL. It is , to borrow a phrase from Tig, "by orders of magnitude " more important to keep Trump out of office than it is to keep Biden out of office. Trump is not morally, ethically, or psychologically fit to hold office in the United States. 

I dont do "bothsidesism". 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.5    3 weeks ago

Yes we know, you will vote for a traitor. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.4    3 weeks ago

The endless defense of the indefensible by certain alleged conservatives and moderates is so tiresome.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
2.1.26  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.14    3 weeks ago

Thanks for sharing, but no one forced you to come here and be offended..

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.27  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.10    3 weeks ago
Yes we know, you will vote for a traitor. 

If for some reason(not reading) you don't know by now that I refuse to vote for Biden or Trump, now you do so please never repeat that false claim.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.28  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.3    3 weeks ago

Vote for Haley.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
2.1.29  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.28    3 weeks ago

She got my first campaign donation.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1.30  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.28    3 weeks ago

Haley will not be the Republican nominee. There is no way she can win enough Republican delegates to defeat Trump in the primary. She isn't even on the ballot in several states.

Her only hope is that the Democrats indict Trump on all of the charges- and he is in prison waiting appeals. 

Of course the civil war that will ensue will make this country ungovernable. Especially when Brandon suspends the election and declares Marshall Law. 

Think that is over the top? That is the same BS that we have had to listen to from the Left/Democrats for the last 8 damn years and counting. The BS wouldn't be so bad if Democrats hadn't taken us the whole Russian collusion BS; 2 faux impeachments; the Jan 6th Pelosi produced for prime time shit show; Garland, Weiss, Wray, Smith two tier just stupidity that makes 3rd world dictators stand up and take notes on how it is done; and prosecuting Jan 6 rioters (and even those that didn't riot now) & parents that have the temerity to question what their kids are taught in schools- meanwhile those radical leftists that vandalized and committed arson on Right to Lift care providers (even spray painting their names on the walls to prove a point) are still walking free because Garland claims it is difficult to identify them because "It was too dark".

  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.31  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.30    3 weeks ago
Haley will not be the Republican nominee.

Correct, that is the problem.   The GOP could vote for Haley but it will not.  The Trump problem is an ongoing failure of the GOP.

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
2.1.32  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.31    3 weeks ago
The GOP could vote for Haley but it will not.  The Trump problem is an ongoing failure of the GOP.

T.G.

I agree wholeheartedly

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.1.33  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.28    3 weeks ago

I plan to.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.34  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.33    3 weeks ago

Same here, if given the opportunity.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago
Robert come out and say you are a conservative Republican and stop with this charade that you are some sort of moderate. Every single article you have seeded here since you came back has an element of an attack on Joe Biden, and you have said next to nothing about Trump. 

John, we have other posters here to claim to be "non partisan" but seem to only attack Trump and give Biden the green light on most issues. [deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @2.2    3 weeks ago
John, we have other posters here to claim to be "non partisan" but seem to only attack Trump and give Biden the green light on most issues.

Its simple, Biden is not remotely the pathetic excuse for a human being that Trump is. There is no reason for them to be treated the same. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @2.2    3 weeks ago
Why the double standard?

Simple question, simple answer:

TRUMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
2.2.3  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    3 weeks ago
"Its simple, Biden is not remotely the pathetic excuse for a human being that Trump is. There is no reason for them to be treated the same." 

That's your opinion only, and in no way a popular belief. Millions of people consider Biden to be corrupt, incompetent, unfit, and a traitor by his deliberate ongoing action of opening the southern border.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.4  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    3 weeks ago
Biden is not remotely the pathetic excuse for a human being that Trump is

OK so you do believe Biden is a pathetic excuse for a human, yet you still defend him every step of the way.

You are also engaging in bothsideism, something you do not hesitate criticizing conservative posters for allegedly doing the same.

If neither of those two were running, who would you like to see step up to the plate...and keep in mind that pretty much everybody you mention will have negativeness that will be exploited by whoever they run against.

That is something you will have to get used to.

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
2.2.5  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    3 weeks ago

John

What degree of a pathetic excuse for a human being is Biden? 

By the way, I agree with your assessment of Trump's character

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Robert in Ohio @2.2.5    3 weeks ago

Joe Biden is a decent human being.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
2.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago

You seem to be straying from the subject, JR.

Over the years, I’ve learned that in the Middle East there aren’t silver bullets.  You can address issues as the occur and you can try to deter actions but permanent solutions are elusive and when we try, it’s likely that we make some things worse.

At the same time we must be strong, remain resilient, deter were we can and defend freedom of the seas.  I wouldn’t take  potential strikes in Iran off of the table but as of today, I think our response has been measured and appropriate.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.3    3 weeks ago

The US should lessen our involvement in the middle east.  We do not have a glorious history over there.  Issues over there are a balancing act. If we launch a heavy attack on Iran proper there would be unseen but predictable ramifications including much of the rest of the Arab and Islamic world turning against us.  Attacking Iran proper will not bring "peace". 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.1    3 weeks ago
Attacking Iran proper will not bring "peace". 

How much "peace" is being brought by attacks on Americans through Iran proxies?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
2.3.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.1    3 weeks ago
The US should lessen our involvement in the middle east.

We have about 900 in Syria and along their border with Jordan on an anti-ISIS mission,  would you pull them out?

We have around 2,500 in Iraq and talks are underway to reduce that number.

We have several hundred trained in Jordan.

We have some naval support facilities and a large airbase in Qatar and a smaller one in Saudi.

Of course we currently have a large naval presence keeping international freedom of sea.

What missions do you want to end?

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
2.3.4  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.1    3 weeks ago

John

I think we have found something else to agree on

The U.S. needs to be either "all in" in the middle East or "all out"

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
2.3.5  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.3.3    3 weeks ago

We need to new "Rules of Engagement" - if our forces are attacked, wounded, killed we need to retaliate not with surgical precision but with vengeful resolve.  Or we need to move our troops out of harm's way.

It is the basis which allows Israel to exist amongst the Arab world with no true allies.  The Arab countries know (some factions occasionally forget) that if they attack Israel or Israelis that there will be retribution (swift and forceful).  

Do you remember when the Israeli athletes were killed in Munich in 1972?  The Israeli operation to track down and eliminate those responsible was named "Operation Wrath of God" and it was well named.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
2.4  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago
We need to stop the national insanity of the pretense that Trump is an acceptable alternative for president. Every American should be a never Trumper, and then we would get a new Republican candidate. 

What pretense?  We're talking about two of the shittiest of shitty politicians.  There's no longer much of a vocal defense of Trump.  People are supporting Trump because Biden is a shittier President than Trump was.

Democrats overplayed their hand.  Democrats lied about everything.  Democrats are shittier than Trump.  And Biden is the shittiest of shitty Democrats.  There's no longer any pretense in supporting Trump.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.4.1  Sparty On  replied to  Nerm_L @2.4    3 weeks ago
We're talking about two of the shittiest of shitty politicians

Yep, ran as a moderate and took a hard left turn on Jan 20, 2020.

Unconscionable….

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.4.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @2.4    3 weeks ago

You say the Democrats are the real racists, and use the civil war era as your "evidence". You have zero credibility on the relative value of our two political partys. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.4.3  bugsy  replied to  Nerm_L @2.4    3 weeks ago
People are supporting Trump because Biden is a shittier President than Trump was.

Exactly, but some are looking at what Biden has done.....WITH POLICY....through blinders

His potential traitorous activities with accepting money from our adversaries is a whole different thing.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.4.4  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.4.2    3 weeks ago
and use the civil war era as your "evidence".

It wasn't just the Civil War that shined a light on the racism of democrats.

It was also the treatment of blacks after the Civil War with the advent of the KKK, by democrats, and continued with Jim Crowe.

Democrats have a long history of racism......and it has nothing to do with the perceived "Southern Strategy" that the left keeps harping about.

Remember, it wasn't any other president than a D that said "we'll keep those n****** voting democrat for the next 200 years. "

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
2.4.5  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @2.4.2    3 weeks ago
You say the Democrats are the real racists

Why yes, yes they are.  And they don't know what the word "inclusion " means either.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
2.4.6  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @2.4.2    3 weeks ago
You have zero credibility on the relative value of our two political partys. 

[deleted]

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
2.4.7  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @2.4.2    3 weeks ago
You say the Democrats are the real racists, and use the civil war era as your "evidence". You have zero credibility on the relative value of our two political partys. 

Are you denying the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation?  

Biden denies the past of the Democratic Party.  That's why Biden is one of the shittiest of shitty Democrats.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.4.8  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @2.4.2    3 weeks ago

On any matter for that sake . . . 

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
2.4.9  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  JohnRussell @2.4.2    3 weeks ago

And you have presented no "credible" evidence either, but why let facts get in the way of a good story right?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.4.10  Tessylo  replied to  Robert in Ohio @2.4.9    3 weeks ago

John always provides credible evidence in his articles and in posts.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.4.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Robert in Ohio @2.4.9    3 weeks ago
And you have presented no "credible" evidence either, but why let facts get in the way of a good story right?

Credible evidence of what? That Democrats are not the anti-black party now? 

There are people here who cling to the ridiculous idea that the Democratic Party of the 21st century is the same as the Democratic Party of the 19th century. Are you in that group ? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.4.12  JohnRussell  replied to  Tessylo @2.4.10    3 weeks ago

Some of these people wouldnt know evidence if it bit them in the ass. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.4.13  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.4.11    3 weeks ago
There are people here who cling to the ridiculous idea that the Democratic Party of the 21st century is the same as the Democratic Party of the 19th century.

Well, not the exact same thing. Most democrats of today don't wear their white hoods in the open.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago

You talk about partisanship, and you watch "Frontline?"   Is "Frontline" the moderate commentator you seek?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.5.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.5    3 weeks ago

You would call anyone who told the truth about Trump a leftist. That is who you are. The facts are the facts and the evidence is the evidence. Frontline didnt create this evidence, which largely comes out of the mouth of Trump advisors, administration members, and other Republicans. And everything in the Frontline documentary is supported by video or Trumps own twitter. 

For example, they show the numerous times Trump has claimed, when he lost something, that he was cheated. They go all the way back to when he was on The Apprentice , and his show lost the best reality show Emmy to The Greatest Race.

Trump claimed that the emmy vote had been rigged against him and the fix was in. 

On and on, he claims , very clearly, that Ted Cruz stole the 2016 Iowa primary. 

He ALWAYS had a plan to try and steal the 2020 election (if he lost). He is not fit to hold office in this country, and far too many of our people are deluded about this. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.5.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.5.1    3 weeks ago

What about the merits of the Trump candidacy?

Both Biden and Trump have served as president. All the people need do is choose which they prefer.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.5.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.5.2    3 weeks ago

You essentially validate Trumps assertion that he could shoot someone in plain view of hundreds of people and not lose support because they like his policies. 

What we have is endless propaganda from right wing media.  You can be for any policy you like, that is fine. Half the country doesnt agree with your policies.

There will always be policy differences, that is why we have a national legislature that compromises. 

Fitness for office is entirely a different matter. If Trump is elected back into office it will be an unprecedented disgrace to the United States of America. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.5.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.5.3    3 weeks ago
There will always be policy differences

And none could be more different than the Trump term and the Biden term.

That is all that should matter to voters.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.5.5  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.5.2    3 weeks ago

There are no merits to the former 'president' or his supporters.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
2.5.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @2.5.1    3 weeks ago

Now you are pivoting from the seed.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
2.5.7  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @2.5.3    3 weeks ago
Fitness for office is entirely a different matter. If Trump is elected back into office it will be an unprecedented disgrace to the United States of America.

Again, just an opinion.

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
2.6  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago

John

Once again you attack the person presenting an article rather than address the subject presented for discussion indicating that you are either unable to form a coherent opinion on the presented subject, have no thoughts on the issue or are simply too shallow to actually discuss an issue that actually has more than one right answer.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.6.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Robert in Ohio @2.6    3 weeks ago

I didnt attack you, I described what you have done since you rejoined NT.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.6.2  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @2.6.1    3 weeks ago

You are quite accurate John.  Not an attack.  Some like to play martyr and victim, like the former 'president'.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.6.3  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.6.1    3 weeks ago
stop with this charade that you are some sort of moderate

"stop with this charade that you are some sort of moderate"

This is from your post 2. You attacked him.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
2.6.4  charger 383  replied to  Robert in Ohio @2.6    3 weeks ago

2.6 was responded to by member addressed so flag was dismissed by charger

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
2.7  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago
Robert come out and say you are a conservative Republican

Why, does that matter somehow?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.7.1  Sparty On  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.7    3 weeks ago

I know.    

I’ve never carried a card for either party, never will but my friends on the left are compulsive about labeling people, so you get a label.   And if you don’t goosestep in exact step with their preferred narrative, you get what they consider to be a bad label.

It’s a very sophomoric process.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.8  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago

I agree with you 1000% here John.  We're not fooled one bit by these alleged moderates and alleged conservatives.  We see right through them.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.8.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Tessylo @2.8    3 weeks ago

They cant handle the truth. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
2.8.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @2.8    3 weeks ago
I agree with you 1000% here John.

Did you mistakenly add an extra 0?

  We see right through them.

You’re a shrewd one, Tess.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.8.3  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.8.1    3 weeks ago
They cant handle the truth. 

The "truth" like this false claim:

Yes we know, you will vote for a traitor. 2.1.10
 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
2.9  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago
We need to stop the national insanity of the pretense that Trump is an acceptable alternative for president. Every American should be a never Trumper, and then we would get a new Republican candidate. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.10  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago

You still just cannot seem to accept that not everyone is not a leftist liberal democrat and not everyone shares your particular political worldview and marks the D box on a ballot no matter how much you expect them to be.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
3  Nerm_L    3 weeks ago

Isn't this Biden's policy of 'never kill a crisis'?  It worked so well in the Senate.

512

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
4  seeder  Robert in Ohio    3 weeks ago

There should be a Code of Conduct rule about hijacking articles with irrelevant bullshit, starting brush fire arguments, rather than letting the actual subject be discussed in an intelligent manner.

No not a CofC rule, but members should have the integrity and civility required to not be the excrement emitting end of an equine.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Robert in Ohio @4    3 weeks ago
There should be a Code of Conduct rule about hijacking articles with irrelevant bullshit, starting brush fire arguments, rather than letting the actual subject be discussed in an intelligent manner.

I think you've got something there.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2  Texan1211  replied to  Robert in Ohio @4    3 weeks ago
There should be a Code of Conduct rule about hijacking articles with irrelevant bullshit, starting brush fire arguments, rather than letting the actual subject be discussed in an intelligent manner. No not a CofC rule, but members should have the integrity and civility required to not be the excrement emitting end of an equine.

Now you are guilty of "bothsideism" and are hereby condemned.

It is simply unbelievable to some that not ALL folks won't vote for Biden and they simply won't take it. In fact, I think those people would be happier if Biden was the only name on the ballot.

If you ain't attacking Trump 24/7. well, then, you're voting for a traitor!!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Robert in Ohio @4    3 weeks ago

It seems that your feelings, as a "moderate" are hurt. 

There are many conservatives and right wingers on this site, and they have their say. You can fit yourself into that rank without distress. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.3.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3    3 weeks ago
You can fit yourself into that rank without distress. 

There is no in between for you.  How did this get to be a discussion about Robert?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.3.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.1    3 weeks ago

You don't have to reply to me. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.3.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.2    3 weeks ago

Somebody does before we lose another member.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.3.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.3    3 weeks ago
Somebody does before we lose another member.

Yeah, me. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.5  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.3    3 weeks ago

He's not going anywhere, he said so.

Another alleged conservative/moderate that we see right through.

He fits right in with the other alleged conservatives/moderates.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.6  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.3    3 weeks ago

Would be no loss whatsoever.

John would be.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
4.3.7  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.4    3 weeks ago
Yeah, me. 

doubt it.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
4.3.8  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3    3 weeks ago
t seems that your feelings, as a "moderate" are hurt. 

Why does there have to be a label?  Would you like being called a LWNJ?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
4.3.9  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @4.3.6    3 weeks ago
John would be.

I am sure it would be devastating for 1 or 2.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.3.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Right Down the Center @4.3.8    3 weeks ago

I dont believe in conspiracies. I dont deny obvious facts. I dont pretend that a traitor is acceptable to run our country.  I am a left winger, sure, but a nut job? LOL. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.3.11  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.10    3 weeks ago
I dont believe in conspiracies. I dont deny obvious facts. 

Russia, Russia, Russia. You were waist deep in it.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.3.12  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @4.3.11    3 weeks ago
You were waist deep in it.

And posted probably hundreds of seeds about the conspiracies....all with no proof.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.3.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @4.3.11    3 weeks ago

I seriously doubt that you know enough about the so called "Russian hoax" to be able to debate it, so why would I bother? 

The Steele dossier ultimately allowed many Americans, especially on the right, to shrug off the fact that Russia sought to change the outcome of the election, and the Republican candidate welcomed that help . Instead they embraced a counternarrative — of an alleged plot by the Democratic candidate (who had been hacked) to influence the course of the election with the assistance of the FBI. The truth about Russia, Trump and the 2016 election - The Washington Post
 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.3.14  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.13    3 weeks ago

An opinion piece from WaPo.

All opinion....no fact

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.3.15  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.13    3 weeks ago
seriously doubt that you know enough about the so called "Russian hoax" to be able to debate it, so why would I bother?

Yeah, and you falsely claimed I would vote for a traitor, so that's one version of what YOU know.

Shades of Reagan.

Your tired ploy of saying no one knows as much as you do is stale, JR.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.3.16  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @4.3.15    3 weeks ago

I know more than you do. I'm 100% sure of that. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.3.17  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.16    3 weeks ago

Thank you for confirming that Reagan is still right decades later.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
4.3.18  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.10    3 weeks ago
I dont believe in conspiracies.

Except the ones the left make up about the right

I dont deny obvious facts.

And you also seem to buy into facts that are just made up

I dont pretend that a traitor is acceptable to run our country. 

Yet you are voting for one

I am a left winger, sure, but a nut job? LOL. 

That is a matter of opinion.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.3.19  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @4.3.14    3 weeks ago

The United States Senate reached the same conclusion. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.20  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.16    3 weeks ago

Hilarious how some quote Reagan when he was suffering dementia (Reagan) through how much of his term and Nancy was actually running the show.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.21  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.16    3 weeks ago

I'm 100% sure of that as well.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.3.22  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.16    3 weeks ago

That comment speaks for itself.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.3.23  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @4.3.22    3 weeks ago

It sure does. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.3.24  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @4.3.17    3 weeks ago

I would say that Jill is running the show, covering for Joe, but she is nowhere near as intelligent as Nancy.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.4  Tessylo  replied to  Robert in Ohio @4    3 weeks ago

That's what the alleged conservatives and moderates here are spewing, just like who they're voting for, for 'president' spews constantly.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
4.5  Right Down the Center  replied to  Robert in Ohio @4    3 weeks ago

That would leave more than a few with nothing to say

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.6  charger 383  replied to  Robert in Ohio @4    3 weeks ago

All of thread 4 is locked to prevent it from gettig worse or becoming full of meta,  by charger

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
5  seeder  Robert in Ohio    3 weeks ago

It is amazing to to see the number of members that are too stupid, too busy or too inarticulate to actually discuss an issue but have plenty of time for ad hominem attacks and irrelevant chatter.

I don't agree with the points of view of many members, but I find no need to attack the members, or to derail their articles 

Seems some members are afraid or too ignorant to discuss actual issues

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.1  Sparty On  replied to  Robert in Ohio @5    3 weeks ago

Two things you can be pretty sure of here:

1 - when someone tells you they are smarter than you, they probably aren’t

2 - strangers attacking your character, usually have none.

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
5.1.1  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Sparty On @5.1    3 weeks ago

Two things you can be pretty sure of here:

1 - when someone tells you they are smarter than you, they probably aren’t

2 - strangers attacking your character, usually have none.

Interesting observation, I will keep it in mind

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
5.1.2  Split Personality  replied to  Sparty On @5.1    3 weeks ago
1 - when someone tells you they are smarter than you, they probably aren’t 2 - strangers attacking your character, usually have none.

Oh, the irony in both of those sentences......

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.2    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Silent
5.1.4  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Robert in Ohio @5.1.1    3 weeks ago

Interesting observation, I will keep it in mind“ 

Always consider sources , 

or not, difference, Be A lot 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.2    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
6  Greg Jones    3 weeks ago

"It is amazing to to see the number of members that are too stupid, too busy or too inarticulate to actually discuss an issue but have plenty of time for ad hominem attacks and irrelevant chatter."

[deleted]

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
6.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Greg Jones @6    3 weeks ago

One need not be stupid or inarticulate to become bored with the constant and mountainous divisive political pseudo-war engulfing America and its citizens and denizens.  Of course the scariest thing is that so many people have guns and ammo that they can use to enforce their opinions.  Just think about what life would be like if politics didn't figure into it.  

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Silent
6.1.1  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.1    3 weeks ago

Buzz, you would be amazed at how many are oblivious to politix me off too, cause people have chosen ignorance over knowledge, kindergarten over college, oatmeal over portage, avoidance over outrage, and just because we have guns, doesn’t mean we don’t know how to have funz, for again i see a distorted vision by you on what it is like in the States, formerly United, and the Bullet, sometimes needs to be Bited, as left Biden our time till it is an attempted Trumping, and from there, possibly time to start bumping,off with their heads this time, 

cause there will not be another January the 6th, no matter how much the Liar Lies

The Quart System will provide the metrics

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
6.1.2  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.1    3 weeks ago

Buzz

Do you really think "Politics" figures it out?

And as an aside, what do you think "it" is?

And perhaps you are right - not stupid or inarticulate, but rather unwilling to actually discuss an issue rationally because points that are contradictory to their unyielding positions on all issues might be brought to light and prove them wrong in their rantings and assertions.

The key to problem solving is rational discussion, acceptance and debate of competing views on a matter and acknowledgment when you are wrong and the person presenting the contrary view is right.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Silent
6.1.3  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Robert in Ohio @6.1.2    3 weeks ago

When people “debating”, have separate sources that they each consider “facts”, the fact is it becomes very difficult to come to an agreed mutual decision on much. When people choose to not even consider looking at substantial amounts of evidence and the accompanying context needed to make informed decisions on debated subjects,there is rarely going to be any agreement, but bury ones head in the sand has been a go to for those who know not too.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
6.1.4  Split Personality  replied to  Robert in Ohio @6.1.2    3 weeks ago
The key to problem solving is rational discussion, acceptance and debate of competing views on a matter and acknowledgment when you are wrong and the person presenting the contrary view is right.

I admire your optimism.

The fact is we are genetically predisposed to keep playing the Game of Thrones.

Unti we "evolve" above this killing field we are doomed to repete it over and over.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
6.1.5  Right Down the Center  replied to  Robert in Ohio @6.1.2    3 weeks ago
The key to problem solving is rational discussion, acceptance and debate of competing views on a matter and acknowledgment when you are wrong and the person presenting the contrary view is right.

As someone that has made a living problem solving and getting training from Chrysler, Ford and Pratt Whitney let me add my two cents.  The biggest mistake in problem solving is not defining the problem correctly.  Believe it or not Engineers have the most issue with that because they want to skip right to the solution.  The training was pretty hilarious since it was set up so initial definition and solutions suggested were set up so they would be all wrong. The second biggest mistake is deciding on a root cause without going through the problem solving process( 7 or 8 defined steps depending on company).  At that point the biggest barrier to solving a correctly defined root cause is getting consensus on an actual solution without anyone being deemed right or wrong.  If everyone does not agree with the solution (even if it is not exactly what they want) the solution will never be implemented correctly.  It is not a matter of being right or wrong but what is acceptable compromise.

Thanks for letting me rant

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
6.1.6  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1.5    3 weeks ago

RDtC

Not a rant at all - rational compromise what a novel and noble concept

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
7  Nerm_L    3 weeks ago

As RiO has pointed out, there is a lot of meta hash being thrown around.  This is like pulling Thanksgiving leftovers out of the freezer three months later.  Runny taters and lumpy gravy.  So, let's get back to discussing the fresh hash on the plate.

Biden's Iran policy is to continue Obama's policy of normalizing relations with Iran.  That has required Biden to be completely deaf, dumb, and blind to Iran's ties with Russia, Iran's meddling in the oil markets, and Iran's sponsoring terror in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Gaza.  

So, Biden's policy is to make nice with Iran, no matter what.  Biden is trying to turn back the clock and redo the consequences of Carter's policies toward Iran.  That's in keeping with Biden's attempts to redo the Cold War.  Biden wants to be a President of the 1970s but Biden is turning into George McGovern.  

(Apparently Biden believes providing safe haven to the Shah was a mistake that drives grievances in the Middle East.  IMO that's a wrong conclusion but that's the best explanation for Obama's and Biden's dealings with Iran.  Obama's and Biden's approach seems to discount Iran's desire to replace Saudi Arabia as the diplomatic and political power in the Middle East.)  

The unbiased liberal press characterizes Biden's approach with Iran as avoiding expanding the conflict in the Middle East.  Biden didn't seem to have the same worries in Eastern Europe.  Biden has been quite provocative with the Ukrainian brush war.  What we're being told by the press doesn't really pass the smell test.  Continuing Obama's policy shift to normalize relations with Iran has only created an opportunity that Iran will try to exploit.

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
7.1  seeder  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Nerm_L @7    3 weeks ago

Nerm

Excellent points

jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png 3 month old leftovers is an excellent description of how some much simply repeat and parrot the same few lines over and over without regard to the question, comment or point they are responding two

Thanks for sharing your persepective

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
7.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Robert in Ohio @7.1    3 weeks ago
Excellent points

Notice that I left out the war between Iran and Iraq?  That was Reagan's pooch.  I had hoped the omission would entice someone else to chime in.  

Thanks for sharing your persepective

Thanks back at ya. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
7.1.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.1    3 weeks ago

I dunno about the iraq-iran war being Reagan's pooch, Iran-Contra was his yes, the war wasn't. It was harder for him to make supplies available to Iran after the hostage mess of the Carter years.instigated by the then Iranian government at the time over the Shah.

What people forget is the only reason the Shah was in the us for was medical treatment for cancer, he had residences in the Bahamas,morroco, Mexico and Egypt, where he eventually died of cancer. He never had a permanent residence in the us.

If I remember right it was Iraq that was the actual aggressor there, thinking Iran lost its supply line to the us and replacement arms,not sure but I think Iran is the only nation still flying the F 14 tomcat,which is why the us has destroyed all the others in existance.

And if I remember right Iran-Contra,had to do with f 14 parts in part.

Of course Iran being shia ran and Iraq being sunni ran at the time, they were going to Duke it out anyway for control of the region.muslim sect on Muslim sect, to each the other is a blasphemer. Of course what level each has it notched up to plays a big part as well.

AND it was during that war Iraq showed the world they would use WMD in any conflict they fought in .

Yes, poison gas is considered a WMD, ask the republican guard or some of the Kurds in northern Iraq.

 
 

Who is online

Kavika
Outis
shona1
Gazoo
Tacos!


57 visitors