Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Face The Facts,,,, Democrats Are STUPID!
#1
GOD, Help The Brain Dead,, your average Democrat Can't Be THIS STUPID,,, Are They?
Quote:Hillary Clinton emerges as top choice of Democratic voters in Harvard-Harris presidential poll
tinysure

[Image: britain_brexit_election_43045_c0-216-338...41e8248bea]


Quote:Mrs. Clinton drew 21%, followed by former Vice President Joseph R. Biden with 20%, when registered Democrats were asked whom they would support for the 2020 party presidential nod if she and former Secretary of State John Kerry were added to the mix.

Placing third in the hypothetical race was Vermont Sen. Bernard Sanders at 12%, followed by Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 9% and ex-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg at 7%.
Seriously, these people had to be Joking or they were are just plain To Stupid To Live!  tinysure
Maybe they found and interviewed these LOSER'S!
[Image: SeriousUntidyIbisbill-size_restricted.gif] [Image: HighUnselfishIberianchiffchaff-small.gif] [Image: iQGIIM.gif][Image: AdorableGlassIberianmole-small.gif]
Quote:The 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, Mrs. Clinton told BBC last month that she had no plans to enter the 2020 contest, although she added, “I never say never to anything.”

“I will certainly tell you, I’m under enormous pressure from many, many, many people to think about it,” she said. “But as of this moment, sitting here in this studio talking to you, that is absolutely not in my plans.”
Source

Yes the Voices in Her Head and These Ignorant People are Applying Enormous Pressure! smallroflmao
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
Reply
#2
Wouldn't you love President Trump to debate her and bring out all the things we've learned now?  I sort of hope she does run so we can expose her... with FACTS. When the Anons get done, she'll just be a greasy spot on the bottom of someone's shoe.

We have "the goods" on all of them, it doesn't matter who their choice is; they're all corrupt, and will be exposed.
Reply
#3
(12-10-2019, 02:36 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote: Wouldn't you love President Trump to debate her and bring out all the things we've learned now?  I sort of hope she does run so we can expose her... with FACTS. When the Anons get done, she'll just  be a greasy spot on the bottom of someone's shoe.  

We have "the goods" on all of them, it doesn't matter who their choice is; they're all corrupt, and will be exposed.

YES!
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
Reply
#4
Even though it's staring me in the face, I struggle to believe that the Democrats really think that their own plank to run on
in this year's election is to oppose the sitting President at every turn. Stupid may not be a good enough word.

I'd think more of them if they admitted that they got a chunk of the frozen interest of Iran's money that was held back!


Quote:US House to vote on limiting Trump war powers against Iran.

'The US House of Representatives is set to vote on a resolution that aims to limit President Donald Trump's ability
to make war on Iran. The largely symbolic measure seeks to mandate congressional approval for any conflict with
Iran, except in cases of an imminent attack against the US.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=6964]

It is expected to pass the Democratic-held House, but faces tougher prospects in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Neither the US nor Iran have declared plans for further military action.

Iran this week fired missiles at Iraqi bases housing American forces, injuring no-one, after the US last week killed a
senior Iranian commander in a Baghdad drone strike. Thursday's measure directs the president to "terminate the use
of United States Armed Forces" against Iran unless granted congressional authorisation.
It offers an exception when necessary to "defend against an imminent armed attack".

Even if the measure clears Congress, it would not reach the president's desk for a potential veto because it is a
concurrent resolution and lacks the force of law. The measure cites the 1973 War Powers Act, which granted Congress
the ability to check the president's power to commit the US to armed conflict.

But the legal questions remain unresolved over whether Congress can use a concurrent resolution to bind the president.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Thursday she did not believe Mr Trump had made the US safer after last week's
drone strike that killed Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani.

Mr Trump, a Republican, meanwhile tweeted that he hoped "all House Republicans will vote against Crazy Nancy Pelosi's
War Powers Resolution". He also made a new claim about the intelligence behind the air raid, telling reporters at the
White House later that the Iranians were "looking to blow up our embassy" in Iraq.

The war powers resolution gathered momentum after a congressional briefing on Wednesday by administration officials
seeking to justify the attack. Following the briefing by the secretary of state, defence secretary and CIA director, two
Republicans senators broke ranks.

Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky said they might back a similar resolution in the Senate seeking to limit the
president's war powers. Their potential defection raises the chances for the measure in the upper chamber, where
Republicans hold a 53-47 majority.

Mr Lee told reporters it was "the worst briefing I've seen at least on a military issue in the nine years I've served".
Lee said the administration officials had warned them against even debating the president's authority to strike Iran,
describing such an approach as "un-American" and "insane".
But most Republicans lawmakers stood by the president.

Doug Collins of Georgia claimed Democrats were "in love with terrorists" and grieving more for Soleimani than for US
service personnel killed by the Iranian commander. "They mourn Soleimani more than they mourn our Gold Star families
who are the ones who suffered under Soleimani," he told Fox News...'
BBC:


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
Reply
#5
[Image: mainstream-media.jpg?fit=987%2C576&ssl=1]
You know it's true!
[Image: iraq-trump-iran.jpg?fit=987%2C576&ssl=1]
[Image: soleimani-iran-trump.jpg?fit=987%2C576&ssl=1]
They Hate The Fact,,, POTUS D. Trump is the New Sheriff and Protects America.
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
Reply
#6
I laughed my ass off at the people screaming that war was coming while running around flailing their arms around. I kept telling them to calm down, no such thing was gonna happen, but they were rather insistent - maybe they were having fun getting their exercise...

My favorite was the young "men" around here panicking that they might have to go to war and shoot someone - they were convinced that war with Iran, and even the draft, was coming. There was nothing I could say to calm their young asses down, so I just walked away shaking my head. They are all long on talk of what all dangerous things they're gonna do if Northam comes for their guns, but then react like this to a little bit of nothing. If they panic at the thought of defending the nation, what the hell is there to make me believe they'll defend the rights of Virginians?

They need to get back to their electronic video games where they can be heros in their own minds on their mother's couches, and let the grown ups get back to preparing and planning for the coming war in Virginia - the video controller cowboys are not going to be much help.

Geez! Sometimes I feel entirely alone in this fight!
" I don't mind killin' a man in a fair fight... or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight... or if there's money involved... or a woman... "

 - Jayne Cobb, Hero of Canton
Reply
#7
@Ninurta 
It is Very Sickening to see this Generation act like Scared 5 year olds, my husband said, the draft was just a part of life when he was 17 going on 18 and you just accepted the fact you had to serve in some way.

The overly excitable young people of today are a disgrace. There are many who do join because they Love My Adopted Country as much as I Do but then there is the vast majority who don't want the opportunities through training to improve themselves.
They live in these little uninformed world that they believe everyone in the Military are in Constant threat of death or having to kill someone.

Yes, here they have to hold their pants up as they walk or let their pants hang below their Smelly Ass.
They act all Gangster and tough and think they can intimidate older citizens like me and my husband and they have been knocked on that Smelly Ass of their more than once by my husband.

Many are a disgrace and need to be drafted.
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
Reply
#8
(01-10-2020, 05:07 PM)guohua Wrote: They act all Gangster and tough and think they can intimidate older citizens like me and my husband and they have been knocked on that Smelly Ass of their more than once by my husband.

"Errbody gangsata 'til it time to do gangsta shit" is a fact of life in the modern age, and it can be equally said, going by my observations here, that "everyone's a patriot until it's time to do patriot shit"

Quote:Many are a disgrace and need to be drafted.


A friend of mine who is still in the service made a post to them that essentially said "stop pissin' yerselves - those of us in uniform don't want your chickenshit  asses in the military, either."

.
" I don't mind killin' a man in a fair fight... or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight... or if there's money involved... or a woman... "

 - Jayne Cobb, Hero of Canton
Reply
#9
If the war with Iran kicks off it will be done with high tec, there is no need for "boots on the ground". But there is a mind set in the higher leadership that thinks you must always have boots on the ground, because if you dont then they lose the point of there job. This was very well seen in WW1, Tanks have no place on the battlefield, only men and carvery. 
If the high tec road is taken then both Europe and the USA must use Internment and mass deportation to control the muslims, but I cant see the governments at the moment having the balls to do that. But times are changing, so who knows
WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, THE EU IS FATHER AND MOTHER
Reply
#10
(01-11-2020, 02:19 PM)Wallfire Wrote: If the war with Iran kicks off it will be done with high tec, there is no need for "boots on the ground". But there is a mind set in the higher leadership that thinks you must always have boots on the ground, because if you dont then they lose the point of there job. This was very well seen in WW1, Tanks have no place on the battlefield, only men and carvery. 
If the high tec road is taken then both Europe and the USA must use Internment and mass deportation to control the muslims, but I cant see the governments at the moment having the balls to do that. But times are changing, so who knows

The higher-ups mindset is worse than just boots-on-the-ground to preserve the relevancy of their jobs. Too many of them want "war honors", accolades and medals, gained on the backs of the troops under them.

When we went into Afghanistan in late 2001, some of us had a workable plan all worked out. It was to send in Special Forces to act as liaisons and forward air controllers to call in hi-tec hell on the enemy, and let the Afghans do the grunt work and mop-up. It was working, too - when we took Kabul, there were only 100 American boots on the ground, on the feet of 50 Special Forces soldiers.

50 Americans leveraged the locals as force multipliers, and we were taking out the enemy like nobody's business, and the Afghans had the honors of taking their own country back from Shaitan.

That all changed when the conventional generals realized that they wouldn't be getting any medals or glory, because they had no part in the events. Consequently, they bitched and howled and pissed and moaned that we needed "boots on the ground" in order to achieve a victory, and a dumb-ass in the White House listened to them, started sending in huge masses of ground troops where they were not needed or wanted, and the war went all to hell. Now we see the results of that decision, 19 years on and the war is still not over. We could have had that shit wrapped up in 18 months, maximum, and got on with the serious business of helping the Afghans set up a government that THEY could live with, one THEY wanted within the confines of their own society.

We had also made plans for small hunter-killer teams to ferret out pockets of Taliban resistance, calling in air support on them whenever we found a camp instead of sending in masses of way too visible troopers. Risk a max of 3-6 guys and no advanced warning to the enemy vs. company sized units and larger telegraphing their position and intention for miles around... it seemed a no-brainer to us.

Instead, we sent in occupation forces and set to work forcing a foreign ideology on them, thereby making enemies instead of friends, and dragging the war on into infinity.

This is not "20/20 hindsight" - at least two of us screamed until we were hoarse that they were doing it all wrong, even way back then. No one listened, and we got what we have.

To compound the insult, a few heads at the top thought that if one war was good for their agenda, two wars were better, and the next thing you know, we invaded and occupied Iraq as well. That went well for us, huh?

No one listens to the guys at the bottom, and they are the ones who pay the price for the dumbass decisions by the dumbasses at the top. Ask any Special Forces trooper how you work with indigs and make friends and allies. Every single one of them will tell you that we did it wrong in Afghanistan, and they will tell you in detail HOW we did it wrong.

Now, on to Iran with piss-poor decisions from people with too much shiny on their hats.

.
" I don't mind killin' a man in a fair fight... or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight... or if there's money involved... or a woman... "

 - Jayne Cobb, Hero of Canton
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)