Donald John Trump is no longer president: what does it mean for you?

So the White House got in contact with Russia before the raid... but would not let congress know.

when you send 8 helicopters into Russian controlled airspace, you better let them know in advance, or else you might have to explain to people that you just lost your best anti terrorist unit for absolutely no reason.
Congress doesn't have to approve erasing the most wanted man on the planet. even Trump didn't know until a couple of days before. This is the work of intelligence on the ground. All Trump did was say "yes, kill the bastard" and then ate pizza while watching it on a screen like a movie, just like Obama did with Bin Laden. Do you actually think Trump or Obama actually did anything? anyone that gets a wanted man in the scope is cleared to fire. why exactly would you need a congress assembly for something that is already allowed?

this is Trump thinking he's on reality tv again. any reason is a good reason to take a jab at the democrats and doesn't realize how petty it makes him look. same goes the other way.
 
https://thebl.com/politics/ukraine-...om-the-beginning-says-former-us-attorney.html

New revelations in the case of President Donald Trump’s impeachment inquiry show a link between the whistleblower and controversial tycoon George Soros.

In an interview, former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova and attorney Victoria Toensing said evidence of that involvement laced the complaint document.

“This is a fraud, not a scandal,” said DiGenova, adding that the whistleblower should go to prison.

The former prosecutor claimed that Joe Biden lied when he claimed that Viktor Shokin, Ukraine’s prosecutor general, was corrupt.

“Hunter Biden’s lawyers apologized to Shokin for lying about him, according to the law firm’s records,” DiGenova said.

The Democrats are trying to hide these facts and that is why this whistleblower “who knows nothing and who has created a document with the help of other people’s lawyers” appeared, the former prosecutor said.

Lawyer Victoria Toensing stated in response to these comments that the document contains notes and references to reports belonging to an organization called the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).

“The whistleblower refers to a publication with the initials ‘OCCRP’. An assumption, Sean, who finances the OCCRP: George Soros,” revealed Toensing.

According to the lawyer, the document submitted by the complainant refers to the organization financed by the Soros Open Society Foundation, on several occasions, in footnotes 4, 9, and 10 on pages 4, 5, and 6 respectively.

Former CIA official Fred Fleitz, president of the Center for Security Policy and former deputy assistant to the president and chief of staff of the National Security Council, also found it very strange that a complaint written by an intelligence officer was written in such a professional manner.

“It appears to be written by a law professor and includes legal references and detailed footnotes. It also has an unusual legalistic reference on how this complaint should be classified,” Fleitz said in an opinion piece published last week in the New York Post.


“From my experience, such an extremely polished whistleblowing complaint is unheard of. This document looks as if this leaker had outside help, possibly from congressional members or staff.”

Soros and Obama State Department act together in Ukraine

The lawyer mentioned in the interview that George Soros was also involved with the State Department in the dismissal of the Ukrainian prosecutor.

“The United States and others made false statements about him [former Ukrainian attorney general Viktor Shokin], yes, they were NGOs funded by George Soros who were also ‘in bed’ with the State Department. They were ‘in bed’ with each other during that time [during Barack Obama’s term], in the name of fighting corruption and it really means that Soros is going after his competitors,” Toensing added.

This statement fits in with the statements of the current Ukrainian prosecutor general, Yuri Lutsenko, who was appointed following Shokin’s dismissal at the behest of Joe Biden, as he himself acknowledged. Lutsenko said in an interview with The Hill that as soon as he took office in 2016, U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch gave him a list of people who should be exempt from prosecution in Ukraine.

Among the names on that list were some members of the non-profit organization AntAC, an entity funded in part by the Soros International Renaissance Foundation and the State Department, according to the group’s donor disclosure records.

“Soros’ dirty money is all over this story from day one,” DiGenova said, while Toensing added that it’s also all over Ukraine.

“[Soros] still has people infiltrating the State Department,” she added.
 
Donald John Trump is now president: what does it mean for you?

when you send 8 helicopters into Russian controlled airspace, you better let them know in advance, or else you might have to explain to people that you just lost your best anti terrorist unit for absolutely no reason.
Congress doesn't have to approve erasing the most wanted man on the planet. even Trump didn't know until a couple of days before. This is the work of intelligence on the ground. All Trump did was say "yes, kill the bastard" and then ate pizza while watching it on a screen like a movie, just like Obama did with Bin Laden. Do you actually think Trump or Obama actually did anything? anyone that gets a wanted man in the scope is cleared to fire. why exactly would you need a congress assembly for something that is already allowed?


this is Trump thinking he's on reality tv again. any reason is a good reason to take a jab at the democrats and doesn't realize how petty it makes him look. same goes the other way.

I fully understand the need to de-conflict with other military forces.

Trump is taking the credit but actually made the task more difficult in backing out of (parts of) Syria before this could be carried out. You don’t get a senior aide to betray their leader in a day. This was a longtime coming. There would have been opportunities to brief congress should he have wanted to. His approach wilfully undermines confidence in the us government and it’s institutions. Not so much in not briefing first, but in running his mouth as to why after the fact.

He’s also being quite glib and graphic in his portrayal of al Baghdadi‘s death. This is actually counter productive in my opinion. It’ll get extremists even more fired up and there were concerns that he was revealing tactics and SOPs that were better kept under wraps.
Code:

The US military announced last week it was reinforcing its position in Syria with additional assets, including mechanised forces, to prevent oilfields from being taken over by ISIL remnants or other armed groups.

https://news.google.com/articles/CA...CoFCAowhgIwkDgw0O8B?hl=en-CA&gl=CA&ceid=CA:en

So bringing troops home means
-additional deployment to Saudi Arabia (of all places...)
-redeploying the troops that were in Syria to Iraq
-bringing more troops to Syria

This makes sense...
 
I fully understand the need to de-conflict with other military forces.

Trump is taking the credit but actually made the task more difficult in backing out of (parts of) Syria before this could be carried out. You don’t get a senior aide to betray their leader in a day. This was a longtime coming. There would have been opportunities to brief congress should he have wanted to. His approach wilfully undermines confidence in the us government and it’s institutions. Not so much in not briefing first, but in running his mouth as to why after the fact.

He’s also being quite glib and graphic in his portrayal of al Baghdadi‘s death. This is actually counter productive in my opinion. It’ll get extremists even more fired up and there were concerns that he was revealing tactics and SOPs that were better kept under wraps.
Code:



https://news.google.com/articles/CA...CoFCAowhgIwkDgw0O8B?hl=en-CA&gl=CA&ceid=CA:en

So bringing troops home means
-additional deployment to Saudi Arabia (of all places...)
-redeploying the troops that were in Syria to Iraq
-bringing more troops to Syria

This makes sense...

How much experience do you have in warfare and conflict resolution? You seem to have a lot of strategic input that the US could use.

It doesn't matter what Trump does, he will be picked apart. He sure is making the previous establishment look incompetent though..
 
I fully understand the need to de-conflict with other military forces.

Trump is taking the credit but actually made the task more difficult in backing out of (parts of) Syria before this could be carried out. You don’t get a senior aide to betray their leader in a day. This was a longtime coming. There would have been opportunities to brief congress should he have wanted to. His approach wilfully undermines confidence in the us government and it’s institutions. Not so much in not briefing first, but in running his mouth as to why after the fact.

He’s also being quite glib and graphic in his portrayal of al Baghdadi‘s death. This is actually counter productive in my opinion. It’ll get extremists even more fired up and there were concerns that he was revealing tactics and SOPs that were better kept under wraps.
Code:



https://news.google.com/articles/CA...CoFCAowhgIwkDgw0O8B?hl=en-CA&gl=CA&ceid=CA:en

So bringing troops home means
-additional deployment to Saudi Arabia (of all places...)
-redeploying the troops that were in Syria to Iraq
-bringing more troops to Syria

This makes sense...

you complained about him not briefing congress but alerting the russians. then you say you understand why and go on to talk about the kurds.
you didn't understand why. here's why: if you send aircraft into an airspace controlled by someone else during war, they will be shot down.
this has nothing to do with congress, Ukraine, the kurds, the Russia probe, that pornstar, grabbing women anywhere. it doesn't have to do with Trump, or Obama or any other personality.

it's a fact of war.

as for the description, I agree that it is useless. the point was to make them think that their leader was a coward and that they should give up. it's unclear what the outcome will be, though I'm sure everyone is aware of the fact that the troops blow up walls when going in.
 
Trump is taking the credit but actually made the task more difficult in backing out of (parts of) Syria before this could be carried out.

Euh, did accomplished the task. How did he made it more difficult can you explain?


You don’t get a senior aide to betray their leader in a day. This was a longtime coming. There would have been opportunities to brief congress should he have wanted to. His approach wilfully undermines confidence in the us government and it’s institutions. Not so much in not briefing first, but in running his mouth as to why after the fact.

Shciff leaks like hell you don't think he undermines confidence?
 
as for the description, I agree that it is useless. the point was to make them think that their leader was a coward and that they should give up. it's unclear what the outcome will be, though I'm sure everyone is aware of the fact that the troops blow up walls when going in.

You guys still don't understand Trump's communication strategy.
 
Gidley slams Washington Post over al-Baghdadi obituary headline



We Mourn the Loss of Culinary Specialist Jeffrey Dahmer (THE SAAD TRUTH_972)

 
Euh, did accomplished the task. How did he made it more difficult can you explain?
For months, intelligence officials had kept Mr. Trump apprised of what he had set as a top priority, the hunt for Mr. al-Baghdadi, the world’s most wanted terrorist.

But Mr. Trump’s abrupt withdrawal order three weeks ago disrupted the meticulous planning underway and forced Pentagon officials to speed up the plan for the risky night raid before their ability to control troops, spies and reconnaissance aircraft disappeared with the pullout, the officials said.

Mr. al-Baghdadi’s death in the raid on Saturday, they said, occurred largely in spite of, and not because of, Mr. Trump’s actions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/27/us/politics/baghdadi-isis-leader-trump.html
 
How much experience do you have in warfare and conflict resolution? You seem to have a lot of strategic input that the US could use.

It doesn't matter what Trump does, he will be picked apart. He sure is making the previous establishment look incompetent though..

Trump has no shortage of qualified persons willing and able to provide insight. He has, on a number of times decided to go his own way because he can. That is part of the executive's prerogative.

There are no shortage of opinions pieces on this topic from people that know a thing or two about these issues. My positions are based on news coverage and research, not personal experience. This is the internet, what did you expect?

Here's where I stand on this: This appears to be the result of an intel operation that had been going on for some time. There may have been a limited window to get it done, but this should not have been a complete surprise.

Intelligence agencies are accountable to the american people through congress. The idea of "checks and balance" at the core of the U.S constitution means that while Trump has a significant amount of decision making within this realm, he also has some reporting requirements.

Under Title 50 U.S.C the president is required to: "ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity as required by [the] title."

I find it hard to believe that in a situation where action is contingent on briefing and obtaining consent from another foreign nation or two, that we would be so concerned about this leaking through a group of high level congressmen (that are sworn to secrecy.) that 45 would evoke his presidential prerogative to limit information.

Wouldn't he be better off to "play nice" with the opposing side once in a blue moon on issues that aren't really partisan? It's been a pretty long standing policy that men responsible for the death of U.S troops will be captured/ eliminated. There isn't much room for contention on this area.

Besides, he doesn't need their approval. He only needs to notify. He chose not to, which invites criticism from the opposition that I for one think he could do without. Turning everything in a political statement is counter-productive.
 
Last edited:
3c2a07cf147008568e86c11165215ffe.gif


Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
 
"Bad orange man deserves no credit whatsoever" - One with strong TDS


Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

So aside from giving the green light, what credit do you think he deserves for the actions of the intel/special forces community?
Al Baghdadi had been a target longer than trump has been in the white house for. A lot of people had wanted this guy dead (preferably) or alive for a long time.
 
So aside from giving the green light, what credit do you think he deserves for the actions of the intel/special forces community?
Al Baghdadi had been a target longer than trump has been in the white house for. A lot of people had wanted this guy dead (preferably) or alive for a long time.

What was he supposed to do as president other than giving the green light? By your logic does any president deserve any credit for anything? since they never really do any work by themself?

Admit it, you are suffering from strong TDS, to come here every minute or so discrediting every little thing about Trump, when you don't really need to do it. Tell me, you are at how many posts in this thread again?



Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
 
What was he supposed to do as president other than giving the green light? By your logic does any president deserve any credit for anything? since they never really do any work by themself?

Admit it, you are suffering from strong TDS, to come here every minute or so discrediting every little thing about Trump, when you don't really need to do it. Tell me, you are at how many posts in this thread again?



Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

They deserve credit for their vision and when they successfully address sensitive foreign and domestic policy issues. This wasn't much in the grand scheme of thing. It's a success, but it didn't need to be turned into one big show.

How many posts? Idk, you tell me! I enjoy debating contemporary issues with a few people on here. It looks like we get our news from different sources and I like seeing the opposing narrative. I also like the clash of ideas.

If it's not entertaining to you feel free to move on to the next thread. I don't believe we've agreed on many things historically speaking and that's fine by me.

Are you sure you want to go down the slope of what is/isn't an appropriate amount of time to spend posting on the internet?
At a glance it looks like your post count is nearly 3x time mine. Surely the irony isn't lost on you...
 
Trump has no shortage of qualified persons willing and able to provide insight. He has, on a number of times decided to go his own way because he can. That is part of the executive's prerogative.

There are no shortage of opinions pieces on this topic from people that know a thing or two about these issues. My positions are based on news coverage and research, not personal experience. This is the internet, what did you expect?

Here's where I stand on this: This appears to be the result of an intel operation that had been going on for some time. There may have been a limited window to get it done, but this should not have been a complete surprise.

Intelligence agencies are accountable to the american people through congress. The idea of "checks and balance" at the core of the U.S constitution means that while Trump has a significant amount of decision making within this realm, he also has some reporting requirements.

Under Title 50 U.S.C the president is required to: "ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity as required by [the] title."

I find it hard to believe that in a situation where action is contingent on briefing and obtaining consent from another foreign nation or two, that we would be so concerned about this leaking through a group of high level congressmen (that are sworn to secrecy.) that 45 would evoke his presidential prerogative to limit information.

Wouldn't he be better off to "play nice" with the opposing side once in a blue moon on issues that aren't really partisan? It's been a pretty long standing policy that men responsible for the death of U.S troops will be captured/ eliminated. There isn't much room for contention on this area.

Besides, he doesn't need their approval. He only needs to notify. He chose not to, which invites criticism from the opposition that I for one think he could do without. Turning everything in a political statement is counter-productive.

I would agree 100% with everything you said if Trump was dealing with a sane, fair, democratic opposition. Schiff and Pelosi are completely Looney Tunes and should not be holding their current positions.
 
I would agree 100% with everything you said if Trump was dealing with a sane, fair, democratic opposition. Schiff and Pelosi are completely Looney Tunes and should not be holding their current positions.

The U.S have been a great nation on so many levels but it feels like they've really lost their ways lately. I don't intend to blame a single person or actor when I'm stating this. On paper, they've planned their constitution to alleviate as best they could a lot of undesirable situation, yet here we are today.

What's even more fascinating is that this "stalemate" isn't just an "unfortunate set of circumstances". It was engineered in many ways. Some people are positioned to take advantage of this, and once again, I'm not talking about Trump's real estate or business interest. There's something else at play here.

It'll be interesting to see how this story ends. I don't think it'll be anytime soon either.
 
They deserve credit for their vision and when they successfully address sensitive foreign and domestic policy issues. This wasn't much in the grand scheme of thing. It's a success, but it didn't need to be turned into one big show.

How many posts? Idk, you tell me! I enjoy debating contemporary issues with a few people on here. It looks like we get our news from different sources and I like seeing the opposing narrative. I also like the clash of ideas.

If it's not entertaining to you feel free to move on to the next thread. I don't believe we've agreed on many things historically speaking and that's fine by me.

Are you sure you want to go down the slope of what is/isn't an appropriate amount of time to spend posting on the internet?
At a glance it looks like your post count is nearly 3x time mine. Surely the irony isn't lost on you...

Lol trust me, i don't post nearly as much as you do in here. i've been lurking this forum for a while, it's normal post counts accumulates over time

But regardless of what i think of you, please continue, let's see how pettier this trump hating gets. I find it pretty entertaining actually and pathetic at the same time lol


Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top