Something else for Lavaca to whine about.

Folks who have actually worked in the US security apparatus understand that trump exposes the United States to security risks from Russia and China. Because, he is an idiot.

https://thehill.com/homenews/c...ures-endorse-harris/

>>>>More than 100 Republican former national security figures, as well as members of Congress, endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris on Wednesday, citing former President Trump’s “demonstrated chaotic and unethical behavior.”

The letter lists a litany of rationales for endorsing Harris and criticizes Trump, saying “she possesses the essential qualities to serve as President and Donald Trump does not.”


“Donald Trump’s susceptibility to flattery and manipulation by Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, unusual affinity for other authoritarian leaders, contempt for the norms of decent, ethical and lawful behavior, and chaotic national security decision-making are dangerous qualities,” the letter states.

“He is unfit to serve again as President, or indeed in any office of public trust.”

Signatories included former Sen. William Cohen (R-Maine), who served as Defense secretary under President Clinton; former CIA Director Michael Hayden, who served under former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama; former Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, who served under Bush; former FBI and CIA Director William Webster, who served under former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George. H.W. Bush; and former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, who served under President George W. Bush.

Listen to the ones what know, eh?

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:
Listen to the ones what know, eh?

Imagine that.

All the neocon chicken-hawks. Who gives a shit.

Guaranteed to change 0 minds.

Dr. Easter, does it not occur to you that 100+ National Security executives and others who have had a direct relationship with him might just know something?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
All the neocon chicken-hawks. Who gives a shit.

Guaranteed to change 0 minds.

…of the weak minded, who let themselves get brainwashed by a charlatan.

It doesn't matter how long you've been a Republican, what you've done for the Party or what you've done for the Country, if you won't swear fealty to the Orange Jesus you are dismissed as not worth listening to.

Every single one of these former officials has forgotten more about the National Security needs of the Country than our learned veterinarian will ever know but his fealty to Trump entitles him to dismiss them with a "who gives a shit".

quote:

Originally posted by Tumbleweed:
Dr. Easter, does it not occur to you that 100+ National Security executives and others who have had a direct relationship with him might just know something?

I'll field this.....

No. It doesn't occur to him.

I don’t disagree that Trump speaks without thinking way too much and is a security risk with his behaviors and willingness to equate everything into business terms and utilize his opportunities into making money.

It certainly is a problem.

Too bad the opposition side, while they tend to follow the rules better feels that the goal of our security apparatus needs to be changed to something that most citizens don’t agree with. They may want other policies that the left wants enough to still support the democrat candidate.

That’s the issue with Trump. He’s got so many bad points that he detracts from the policy differences.

I’ll take people who follow the rules.
The rules keep bad things from happening.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
All the neocon chicken-hawks. Who gives a shit.

Guaranteed to change 0 minds.

You really are at the end of the spool.

quote:

Originally posted by Tumbleweed:
Dr. Easter, does it not occur to you that 100+ National Security executives and others who have had a direct relationship with him might just know something?

It is not that they are ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

Those listed above are a who’s who of blunders.

Foolish statement number 4 of the day.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Tumbleweed:
Dr. Easter, does it not occur to you that 100+ National Security executives and others who have had a direct relationship with him might just know something?

It is not that they are ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

Those listed above are a who’s who of blunders.

With their biggest collective blunder being ever having anything to do with trump and his administration. Which is the whole point, of course. That you miss...of course.

quote:

Those listed above are a who’s who of blunders.

Well shit! And here I thought he only hired “All the best people!”

I was reading just yesterday that 40 out of 44 of his previous cabinet are refusing to endorse him, including his VP of four years, Fat Mike and Bill Barr.

I wonder who’s right and who’s wrong?

I promise not to judge…

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Foolish statement number 4 of the day.

It's early yet...

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Foolish statement number 4 of the day.

This count is low.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
More than 100 Republican former national security figures, as well as members of Congress, endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris on Wednesday,

well, quemala LOVES venn diagrams (well, i do too) i wonder what the overlap of this 100 has with the national security figures that also signed off that hunter's laptop was disinformation?
It's a valid question

Or who thought that going to Iraq was a grand idea. Or who thought the dossier was a brilliant piece of investigative work.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
More than 100 Republican former national security figures, as well as members of Congress, endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris on Wednesday,

well, quemala LOVES venn diagrams (well, i do too) i wonder what the overlap of this 100 has with the national security figures that also signed off that hunter's laptop was disinformation?
It's a valid question

Well, I should have known we'd never get through any discussion of trump's fuck-ups with Hunter coming up. Peas in a pod.

Refresh my recollection. You're saying that 100 national security figures said what about Hunter's laptop? And, how does that relate to this?

200 signed a letter stating the laptop was Russian disinformation

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Or who thought that going to Iraq was a grand idea. Or who thought the dossier was a brilliant piece of investigative work.

Glass houses and all that....I can guarantee you virtually everybody on your side of the aisle thought going to Iraq was a grand idea, including you I would be willing to bet. And, including the idiot POTUS and his security apparatus you elected that led the charge.

There you go again Doc. You keep trying to sound balanced and even-handed but end up discrediting yourself with blatant EXTREME RIGHT WING BIAS.

1. You are minimising Trump's faults. He blatantly disregards laws and rules. He bluntly violates National Security rules. He holds meetings with Russian intelligence leaders ALONE in the Oval office without a single US official or staff present. After his meeting with Putin, he snatched the meeting notes from one of the junior staff and tore them up in from of TV cameras. His toilets were blocked with secret documents that he destroyed. He stole national secrets and lied about it for a year. He repeatedly tried to hide the secrets. There is even evidence that some of them were copied.

Doc, you are saying that all that is just a simple "not thinking too much"?

2. You claim that the democrats follow rules better. Why don't you just admit that they are not criminals like Trump.

3. You say that the Democrats want the security apparatus to change to something that most people do not want. That is not true. Democrats have won the popular vote regularly and for a long time. More importantly, National security is not defined by popular opinion. The laws, rules, procedures, controls etc. are in place for very good reasons. You are simply making wild guesses like "They may want other policies...". That is not fact but just your conjecture and your PRJUDICE.

4. Policy differences - like Project 2025 and establishing an Oligarchy that disenfranchises the people?

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I don’t disagree that Trump speaks without thinking way too much and is a security risk with his behaviors and willingness to equate everything into business terms and utilize his opportunities into making money.

It certainly is a problem.

Too bad the opposition side, while they tend to follow the rules better feels that the goal of our security apparatus needs to be changed to something that most citizens don’t agree with. They may want other policies that the left wants enough to still support the democrat candidate.

That’s the issue with Trump. He’s got so many bad points that he detracts from the policy differences.

quote:

including the idiot POTUS and his security apparatus you elected that led the charge

Then quit trotting out his guys to support your cause.

Yeah I believed them. Burn me once…shame on them. Burn me twice…shame on me.

Lane

THAT was NOT national Security decision. It was a farce orchestrated by Dick Chaney purely for the Criminal Oligarchs to make a LOT OF MONEY from the war for several decades to come.

Republican administrations are well known for such decisions including GHWB sr.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Or who thought that going to Iraq was a grand idea. Or who thought the dossier was a brilliant piece of investigative work.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
More than 100 Republican former national security figures, as well as members of Congress, endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris on Wednesday,

well, quemala LOVES venn diagrams (well, i do too) i wonder what the overlap of this 100 has with the national security figures that also signed off that hunter's laptop was disinformation?
It's a valid question

Well, I should have known we'd never get through any discussion of trump's f*ck-ups with Hunter coming up. Peas in a pod.

Refresh my recollection. You're saying that 100 national security figures said what about Hunter's laptop? And, how does that relate to this?

Take a breath - slow down .. read what *I* posted - the 100 i am referencing at the 100 that YOUR quote is using as a call to higher authority - I am asking a pretty simple question, as the "sign off" that hunter's laptop was disinformation from an unknown group of authorities turned out to be WRONG (we don't really need to relitigate that it's hunter's laptop, do we?)

I am calling into question your, repeat YOUR, source of authority, as we've seen this stuff before --

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Lane

THAT was NOT national Security decision. It was a farce orchestrated by Dick Chaney purely for the Criminal Oligarchs to make a LOT OF MONEY from the war for several decades to come.

Republican administrations are well known for such decisions including GHWB sr.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Or who thought that going to Iraq was a grand idea. Or who thought the dossier was a brilliant piece of investigative work.

Joe and killary thought it was a grand idea, and voted for it, and to continue it, every time a vote came up for approval and funds.

Lane

You don't get it, do you?

Getting rid of Trump is not a Democratic cause. It is a NATIONAL Cause. That is why so many Republicans are working against Trump. Unlike you, they see how dangerous he is for the future of the US. How dangerous he is for Democratic institutions.

Your extreme RIGHT WING agenda blinds you to the facts.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

including the idiot POTUS and his security apparatus you elected that led the charge

Then quit trotting out his guys to support your cause.

Yeah I believed them. Burn me once…shame on them. Burn me twice…shame on me.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Lane

You don't get it, do you?

Getting rid of Trump is not a Democratic cause. It is a NATIONAL Cause. That is why so many Republicans are working against Trump. Unlike you, they see how dangerous he is for the future of the US. How dangerous he is for Democratic institutions.

Your extreme RIGHT WING agenda blinds you to the facts.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

including the idiot POTUS and his security apparatus you elected that led the charge

Then quit trotting out his guys to support your cause.

Yeah I believed them. Burn me once…shame on them. Burn me twice…shame on me.

Poor little Naki -- you'll never get it .. but, seriously, i expect you were never a "cool kid" or popular -- tell us the story again about your riots at the gates of your compound, and how outrageous your behavior must have been to have the rural village elders come talk to you about it?

hmm, you left India why.. no, don't tell us, we've seen it from your own hand

That just shows that the Criminal oligarchs conned everyone including Democrats.

It just shows that you do not have the simple intellect to understand that.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Lane

THAT was NOT national Security decision. It was a farce orchestrated by Dick Chaney purely for the Criminal Oligarchs to make a LOT OF MONEY from the war for several decades to come.

Republican administrations are well known for such decisions including GHWB sr.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Or who thought that going to Iraq was a grand idea. Or who thought the dossier was a brilliant piece of investigative work.

Joe and killary thought it was a grand idea, and voted for it, and to continue it, every time a vote came up for approval and funds.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Lane

You don't get it, do you?

Getting rid of Trump is not a Democratic cause. It is a NATIONAL Cause. That is why so many Republicans are working against Trump. Unlike you, they see how dangerous he is for the future of the US. How dangerous he is for Democratic institutions.

Your extreme RIGHT WING agenda blinds you to the facts.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

including the idiot POTUS and his security apparatus you elected that led the charge

Then quit trotting out his guys to support your cause.

Yeah I believed them. Burn me once…shame on them. Burn me twice…shame on me.

Poor little Naki -- you'll never get it .. but, seriously, i expect you were never a "cool kid" or popular -- tell us the story again about your riots at the gates of your compound, and how outrageous your behavior must have been to have the rural village elders come talk to you about it?

hmm, you left India why.. no, don't tell us, we've seen it from your own hand

awesome display of whit .. amazing

and just about exactly the value of your normal post,.. though props for the brevity

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
More than 100 Republican former national security figures, as well as members of Congress, endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris on Wednesday,

well, quemala LOVES venn diagrams (well, i do too) i wonder what the overlap of this 100 has with the national security figures that also signed off that hunter's laptop was disinformation?
It's a valid question

Well, I should have known we'd never get through any discussion of trump's f*ck-ups with Hunter coming up. Peas in a pod.

Refresh my recollection. You're saying that 100 national security figures said what about Hunter's laptop? And, how does that relate to this?

Take a breath - slow down .. read what *I* posted - the 100 i am referencing at the 100 that YOUR quote is using as a call to higher authority - I am asking a pretty simple question, as the "sign off" that hunter's laptop was disinformation from an unknown group of authorities turned out to be WRONG (we don't really need to relitigate that it's hunter's laptop, do we?)

I am calling into question your, repeat YOUR, source of authority, as we've seen this stuff before --

So.....we should dismiss the opinions of these 100 former members of trump's National Security Administration because of....Hunter's laptop? I'm having trouble with the analogy.

we should question it -- in your field, do you accept the consensus opinion or do you do your job the best you see fit? I expect, and have seen nothing contrary, that you are an honest lawyer and actually a decent man .. 100 people give their opinion, and if you disagree, you'd shrug your shoulders and do what YOU think is right...

just because 100 unnamed, misc people say a thing doesn't make it any more "real" or have more authority

Firstly, as I’m sure your pastor has pointed out, two wrongs don’t make a right.

Just because Trump violates protocol and is sleazy doesn’t make Harris an angel.

The democrats write the rules and then follow them better. It’s not too difficult to understand that the rules are not necessarily proper. If Clinton and Biden got away with bad handling of security information that would have gotten any uneducated service member a lengthy stay in prison, yet the lawyers here insist they are innocent of wrongdoing under the rules, either the system is screwed up or the rules are done poorly to their advantage.

The democrats have a plethora of positions. You may have a view that transgender rights are so important that you are willing to support them despite other positions you don’t like, as an example.

I don’t know too many blue collar union members who agree with the democrats on immigration or gun control… but they do strongly want labor Union members protected, so they vote democrat despite disagreeing with their policy in some respects.

You do seem to forget in a Democratic state, the rules are made by the people. Lots of laws were enacted for reasons that seemed sufficient at the time; but then they get changed in function by court rulings or policy statement changes. The laws as they are now enforced are not necessarily right… and by definition the people can change them through their representatives. Logic and reasonability have nothing to do with the rules; who is in charge and the degree of support from the people is all.

I begin to doubt you spent much time here in the US if you think most people agree with all the rules, it’s kind of a national pastime to go on how much better things would be if you could write the rules.

You also seem to confuse terms a lot.

An oligarchy is what, again?

You seem to be going down the road of the trilateral commission, the Illuminati, and other conspiracies.

The wealthy in the US are not some secret cabal. I tend to agree that the wealthy and famous have outsized influence on the country… but via public opinion, not secret power. Heck, project 2025 is not some way the super wealthy take over. It’s an extreme right wing wish list that has about as much chance of happening as your idea that left wing kiwis are going to get rid of nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear war.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
There you go again Doc. You keep trying to sound balanced and even-handed but end up discrediting yourself with blatant EXTREME RIGHT WING BIAS.

1. You are minimising Trump's faults. He blatantly disregards laws and rules. He bluntly violates National Security rules. He holds meetings with Russian intelligence leaders ALONE in the Oval office without a single US official or staff present. After his meeting with Putin, he snatched the meeting notes from one of the junior staff and tore them up in from of TV cameras. His toilets were blocked with secret documents that he destroyed. He stole national secrets and lied about it for a year. He repeatedly tried to hide the secrets. There is even evidence that some of them were copied.

Doc, you are saying that all that is just a simple "not thinking too much"?

2. You claim that the democrats follow rules better. Why don't you just admit that they are not criminals like Trump.

3. You say that the Democrats want the security apparatus to change to something that most people do not want. That is not true. Democrats have won the popular vote regularly and for a long time. More importantly, National security is not defined by popular opinion. The laws, rules, procedures, controls etc. are in place for very good reasons. You are simply making wild guesses like "They may want other policies...". That is not fact but just your conjecture and your PRJUDICE.

4. Policy differences - like Project 2025 and establishing an Oligarchy that disenfranchises the people?

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I don’t disagree that Trump speaks without thinking way too much and is a security risk with his behaviors and willingness to equate everything into business terms and utilize his opportunities into making money.

It certainly is a problem.

Too bad the opposition side, while they tend to follow the rules better feels that the goal of our security apparatus needs to be changed to something that most citizens don’t agree with. They may want other policies that the left wants enough to still support the democrat candidate.

That’s the issue with Trump. He’s got so many bad points that he detracts from the policy differences.

Doc,
I suspect he has about as much influence on an actual Kiwi as he does with Texans

Doc

Let us be honest. No body is talking about ANGELS. I am just saying that Trump is far more dangerous to WORLD SOCIETY than Kamala Harris.

At no stage have I said that two wrongs make a right.

You are making some statements and assertions that are FALSE. The Democrats DO NOT make the rules. Congress makes the rules. We have already gone through this ad nauseum. As already pointed out in another thread, Republicans had the Presidency AND congress control for 6 years and the Democrats for 4 years. These are FACTS.

While Cliton and Biden mishandled documents, their intent was not criminal. They were error and oversight with no risk to national security. Trump's handling of secret documents was CRIMINAL. He stole them. He hid them. he lied about them. He destroyed secret confidential documents and flushed them down the toilet. Do you not see the difference?

Please stop the transgender BS and deflection. It is just an extreme BS talking point and I do not care about it and it is not relevant to the debate. The Republicans voted for gay marriage law, which I am personally against.

you are trying the other idiot's playbook about my credibility to speak about US politics. Please stop. Show me some respect.

Oligarchy is defined in various dictionaries and you can find that. The heritage foundation represents oligarchs. the Koch brothers are / were oligarchs. They spent over 40 years building their influence on the far right. They established thousands of think tanks and so called charities, so called "research" institutes to build up a huge library of so called research and publications that just cross referenced each other for 40 years. This was just far right policies and talking points made to look like main stream academics.

They plotted & planned power strikes. remember the huge "secret" meeting of conservatives that they held during Obama's inauguration.

Your dismissing the Project 2025 is a weak defence. You need to condemn it and be afraid of it. it was written by many people who were part of the former Trump administration. They have already hand picked 20,000 people to take positions in the next administration if Trump wins.


Back to the point - You are being very lenient on Trump and unreasonable about Harris. It is YOU who is trying to make them similar trying to justify supporting Trump.

Harris not an Angel. But Trump is not far from the devil incarnate. You can interpret that figuratively and start being terrified of another Trump administration.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Firstly, as I’m sure your pastor has pointed out, two wrongs don’t make a right.

Just because Trump violates protocol and is sleazy doesn’t make Harris an angel.

The democrats write the rules and then follow them better. It’s not too difficult to understand that the rules are not necessarily proper. If Clinton and Biden got away with bad handling of security information that would have gotten any uneducated service member a lengthy stay in prison, yet the lawyers here insist they are innocent of wrongdoing under the rules, either the system is screwed up or the rules are done poorly to their advantage.

The democrats have a plethora of positions. You may have a view that transgender rights are so important that you are willing to support them despite other positions you don’t like, as an example.

I don’t know too many blue collar union members who agree with the democrats on immigration or gun control… but they do strongly want labor Union members protected, so they vote democrat despite disagreeing with their policy in some respects.

You do seem to forget in a Democratic state, the rules are made by the people. Lots of laws were enacted for reasons that seemed sufficient at the time; but then they get changed in function by court rulings or policy statement changes. The laws as they are now enforced are not necessarily right… and by definition the people can change them through their representatives. Logic and reasonability have nothing to do with the rules; who is in charge and the degree of support from the people is all.

I begin to doubt you spent much time here in the US if you think most people agree with all the rules, it’s kind of a national pastime to go on how much better things would be if you could write the rules.

You also seem to confuse terms a lot.

An oligarchy is what, again?

You seem to be going down the road of the trilateral commission, the Illuminati, and other conspiracies.

The wealthy in the US are not some secret cabal. I tend to agree that the wealthy and famous have outsized influence on the country… but via public opinion, not secret power. Heck, project 2025 is not some way the super wealthy take over. It’s an extreme right wing wish list that has about as much chance of happening as your idea that left wing kiwis are going to get rid of nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear war.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
There you go again Doc. You keep trying to sound balanced and even-handed but end up discrediting yourself with blatant EXTREME RIGHT WING BIAS.

1. You are minimising Trump's faults. He blatantly disregards laws and rules. He bluntly violates National Security rules. He holds meetings with Russian intelligence leaders ALONE in the Oval office without a single US official or staff present. After his meeting with Putin, he snatched the meeting notes from one of the junior staff and tore them up in from of TV cameras. His toilets were blocked with secret documents that he destroyed. He stole national secrets and lied about it for a year. He repeatedly tried to hide the secrets. There is even evidence that some of them were copied.

Doc, you are saying that all that is just a simple "not thinking too much"?

2. You claim that the democrats follow rules better. Why don't you just admit that they are not criminals like Trump.

3. You say that the Democrats want the security apparatus to change to something that most people do not want. That is not true. Democrats have won the popular vote regularly and for a long time. More importantly, National security is not defined by popular opinion. The laws, rules, procedures, controls etc. are in place for very good reasons. You are simply making wild guesses like "They may want other policies...". That is not fact but just your conjecture and your PRJUDICE.

4. Policy differences - like Project 2025 and establishing an Oligarchy that disenfranchises the people?

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I don’t disagree that Trump speaks without thinking way too much and is a security risk with his behaviors and willingness to equate everything into business terms and utilize his opportunities into making money.

It certainly is a problem.

Too bad the opposition side, while they tend to follow the rules better feels that the goal of our security apparatus needs to be changed to something that most citizens don’t agree with. They may want other policies that the left wants enough to still support the democrat candidate.

That’s the issue with Trump. He’s got so many bad points that he detracts from the policy differences.

What’s it running these days? Ten to one former administration officials condemning their former boss versus those singing his praises? Nothing to see here, move along, move along.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
What’s it running these days? Ten to one former administration officials condemning their former boss versus those singing his praises? Nothing to see here, move along, move along.

I'll listen to the ten who have been there and done that. Doesn't sound like you have been there and done that..