Trump's last(?) "Is he lying?"

Is it a concern?

  • I bet that NBC is probably lying

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The details in the 2nd last paragraph matter.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    14
I'm with Light Cleric. I can't fathom how this guy can manage to hit a new low every effing day.

The extra sad thing is that, because there are these two accounts of how the phone call went, and because Trump can never graciously let anything go, the widow is now going to have to endure a week of having her husband's death be nothing more than a point of contention for Trump. In other words, it's bad enough already, and it's only going to get worse.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't Johnson the only black guy killed?
 
If the actual difference was roughly sevenfold, then I think the reporting is outright dishonest when it needn't have been. I'd have tolerated any number larger than nine if the headline was to be referring to 'ten'.
 
Eh, my concern with this isn't that His Trumpiness is a human turd, that much is well understood.
It is that nobody seems particularly interested in that US troops are in what looks like combat situations and they just sort of "appeared" there.
 
It is that nobody seems particularly interested in that US troops are in what looks like combat situations and they just sort of "appeared" there.

What? Are you talking about a blatant violation of the War Powers Act?
Donald, say it ain't so! :cry:
 
What? Are you talking about a blatant violation of the War Powers Act?
Donald, say it ain't so! :cry:
Nah, we've been mucking about in Niger since, what 2013, as part of the French intervention in Mali?
The expansion of the "secret war" by Obama is one of my biggest criticisms of him.
 
The expansion of the "secret war" by Obama is one of my biggest criticisms of him.

Aye. :shake: Both Obama and Trump attempt to shelter their actions under Congress's authorization to use whatever means necessary to bring to justice those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. But no one in Mali, Libya, Syria, etc, is responsible for those attacks.

I've never understood what the reluctance is. Do Obama and/or Trump fear that, if they's asked Congress for a Declaration of War against Da'esch and its affilliates, Congress would say no?
 
I've never understood what the reluctance is. Do Obama and/or Trump fear that, if they's asked Congress for a Declaration of War against Da'esch and its affilliates, Congress would say no?

It would legitimize the self-proclaimed authority of those being declared against. It's better for propaganda and politicking if you perpetually consider them unsanctioned deviants.
 
and of course the war in Mali and the like stems from the thing that there were beardies in the area and the West was providing intel to the legitimate Goverment . Which naturally failed and American trained and like the best troops of the Goverment staged a coup and allied with the beardies . Attempting to steal Mali from the French and the "frogs" just jumped in . America's boys naturally ran and Washington and Paris agreed to allow the beardies to run for re-use . If you are to believe Qatar's Al Crusading . Fighting enemies of Mankind and the like is indeed possible but who knows , maybe Trump loves the beardies secretly .
 
Seems historically, if the US potus does not get a war somewhere outside the borders, US citizenry will find a way to enact "them" out internally within the US. That is the point of still being considered "Commander in Chief". Either the war will be cold or hot, but there will always be a war one way or the other, and people will always complain about it on both sides of the issue.

BTW, we complain about lying, and being mislead, by the very people who in the guise of human rights state it is possible to control what a human thinks. I think the expression is "we hate and want to destroy those who do not think like we do". Hate speech is a two way street. Some instances are so bad that sometimes the news media is unable to spin it in any favorable way.
 
Last edited:
General Kelly has gone after Congresswoman Wilson, saying she falsely claimed to have secured a new FBI building for her district, when in reality, the funding was allocated before she was elected. However, a video of her speech shows her telling how she'd worked to get the building named after two slain FBI agents. Et tu, General?
 
General Kelly has gone after Congresswoman Wilson, saying she falsely claimed to have secured a new FBI building for her district, when in reality, the funding was allocated before she was elected. However, a video of her speech shows her telling how she'd worked to get the building named after two slain FBI agents. Et tu, General?


And when the general was called on it, Kellyann said it was inappropriate to question a general.
 
It is that nobody seems particularly interested in that US troops are in what looks like combat situations and they just sort of "appeared" there.

I too fail to understand why people seem to oppose tactless comments about soldiers dying more than the wars and "interventions" that get them killed.
 
:dubious: He's not a general. He's White House Chief of Staff, i.e. a politician. :thumbsdown:
Don't you know? It's inappropriate, even treasonous to question any member of the administration. Only anti-american communist, moderate, terrorist, left-wing, liberal, coal-hating, media-elitist, islamic fundamentalist atheists ask questions.
 
I too fail to understand why people seem to oppose tactless comments about soldiers dying more than the wars and "interventions" that get them killed.
Americans seem to have this thing where "Support Our Troops" is the same as "Ours not to reason why". I suspect it is because America's never had a real anti-war political party and our wars take place on the other side of the globe, not a short plane ride away.
 
Top Bottom