Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 168: Chemical Attacks are Syria's Business

(+) Yeah! (+)

Shaduln posted...

Corrik posted...

If Trump ever fires Mueller, he will be impeached. It doesn't matter how many of these Trump wanted to fire him reports come out. He can fire him at will. He hasn't. And if he does, he will be impeached. Simple as that.

I wish I had your faith in congress/republicans.

It is I am just taking that article for what it actually says.

.
---

Corrik posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Read it again

He wanted to fire Mueller because he thought Mueller got subpoenas for his (Trump's) banking records. He was only fine when he found out the subpoenas were for other peoples records and not his own.

He was mad because he said he doesn't have any accounts at that bank. Which means the reports could not be correct. When Mueller clarified it was other people's account and not his, thus not accurate reporting, he was fine.

I mean, that is what I got from reading it. Is that not what you are getting?

His lawyers said that. Trump himself apparently thought Mueller was somehow getting banking records about him, or was atleast trying to, from Deutsche Bank and had to be told that wasn't the case. Trump wasn't mad because he thought Mueller lied, Trump was mad because the reports made him think Mueller was targeting him, and he had to be told by his lawyers and Mueller that he wasn't.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Read it again

He wanted to fire Mueller because he thought Mueller got subpoenas for his (Trump's) banking records. He was only fine when he found out the subpoenas were for other peoples records and not his own.

He was mad because he said he doesn't have any accounts at that bank. Which means the reports could not be correct. When Mueller clarified it was other people's account and not his, thus not accurate reporting, he was fine.

I mean, that is what I got from reading it. Is that not what you are getting?

His lawyers said that. Trump himself apparently thought Mueller was somehow getting banking records about him, or was atleast trying to, from Deutsche Bank and had to be told that wasn't the case. Trump wasn't mad because he thought Mueller lied, Trump was mad because the reports made him think Mueller was targeting him, and he had to be told by his lawyers and Mueller that he wasn't.

I don't get that from the article. I will re-read it later. He appeared mad that he supposedly was having his bank records taken according to the media from a bank he didn't even have money in.
---

No, the point of the article is that Trump read a few headlines and didn't look into it/didn't even take time to think before wanting to fire Mueller.

-Articles said "Mueller gets subpoenas for Trump banking records from Deutsche Bank" or whatever.
-Trump immediately went "That's crossing the line. Fire him!" without thinking to realize it couldn't be correct.
-Trump's lawyers went "..Hold on, we don't think this is correct" and looked into the subpoenas themselves.
-Trump's lawyers and Mueller go "Yeah, the subpoenas aren't about you."
-Trump goes "Oh okay" and calms down.

The point it was making was that Trump believed false headlines and tried to fire Mueller over them without even thinking about it/getting the facts
---

Also why should anybody give a fuck about Trump's "red line"?
---

https://www.theroot.com/sheriff-of-americas-deadliest-police-force-caught-on-ca-1825146403?utm_source=theroot_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

A recently discovered video of a California sheriff talking to law enforcement officers shows Kern Countys chief lawman explaining that killing citizens is better than wounding or injuring them because it costs less money and makes the family go away.

...

During that year, Kern County deputies and Bakersfield, Calif., police killed 1.5 people for every 100,000 residents, more than three times the rate of Los Angeles County and 10 times the rate of the New York Police Department in 2015.

...

You know what happens when a guy makes a bad shooting and somebody kills them? Youngblood explained. Three million bucks and the family goes away after a long back and forth.

When a deputy shoots someone in the streets, which way do you think is better financiallyto cripple them or kill themfor the county? Youngblood asked. When someone replied, Kill them, Youngblood responded, Absolutely. Because if theyre crippled we get to take care of them for life. And that cost goes way up.

Yeah.
---

Well that's a problem
---

KamikazePotato posted...

https://www.theroot.com/sheriff-of-americas-deadliest-police-force-caught-on-ca-1825146403?utm_source=theroot_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

A recently discovered video of a California sheriff talking to law enforcement officers shows Kern Countys chief lawman explaining that killing citizens is better than wounding or injuring them because it costs less money and makes the family go away.

...

During that year, Kern County deputies and Bakersfield, Calif., police killed 1.5 people for every 100,000 residents, more than three times the rate of Los Angeles County and 10 times the rate of the New York Police Department in 2015.

...

You know what happens when a guy makes a bad shooting and somebody kills them? Youngblood explained. Three million bucks and the family goes away after a long back and forth.

When a deputy shoots someone in the streets, which way do you think is better financiallyto cripple them or kill themfor the county? Youngblood asked. When someone replied, Kill them, Youngblood responded, Absolutely. Because if theyre crippled we get to take care of them for life. And that cost goes way up.

Yeah.

Should be fired, investigated, and charged for any crimes uncovered.
---

Commiefornia is a shithole, what else is new
---

ZXAdvent_Lucian posted...

Commiefornia is a shithole, what else is new

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4" data-time="
---

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/984045009207996416

#BREAKING: Paul Ryan to announce retirement from Congress https://t.co/MHAI8mvAw9 https://t.co/xSnw24EgwP

Does this count as someone leaving the administration?
---

I cant believe this is real life sometimes.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/984022625440747520?s=21
---

Lmao what a fuckinh dillweed
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I cant believe this is real life sometimes.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/984022625440747520?s=21

...

what?
---

A very stable genius.
---

did vlado say anything about this whole thing? he adores trump AND assad, so this must be sophie's choice for him.
---

He thinks it's more 10d chess
---

Paul Ryan is jumping ship.
---

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/372943068267573249?s=21

Of course this exists
---

https://twitter.com/learyreports/status/984068999343476738?s=21

Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Fla, informed staff this morning he is retiring.

This is quite the trend
---

Ryan at least has been a representative for pushing 20 years.

And Ross probably doesn't think he can win a florida district in a blue wave year so he's not going to waste his time trying.

At the very least both of them are getting out before the filing deadline to be on the ballot in their respective states. If they had already filed to be on the ballot I would consider the timing to be a lot more suspect right after a RNC lawyer gets raided, but as it is I see no reason currently to connect those dots. If it comes out later that it was related then sure, but we don't need to jump to that conclusion.
---

I dont think anyone here was jumping to that conclusion?
---

It seemed like literally everyone on the twitter comments was. I wasn't trying to say anyone on B8 was. I was just covering that angle preemptively I guess.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/372943068267573249?s=21

Of course this exists

That isn't the same and you know that. C'mon now, Jakyl.
---

How is it not the same?
---

How could it even be more the same than that?
---

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/984020136255541248?s=21

When you say you committed No Collusion or Obstruction, your next words probably shouldnt be other than.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

How is it not the same?

The context was in relation to ISIS and announcing what city you would attack next and what time you would begin attacking it.

Not in regards to a satellite possessing nation who already knows you are coming.

That said, it is a pretty dumb tweet, all things considered.
---

BAD!
---

Corrik posted...

Not in regards to a satellite possessing nation who already knows you are coming.

But they already know were coming because he told them so
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Not in regards to a satellite possessing nation who already knows you are coming.

But they already know were coming because he told them so

They already know you are coming because it is has been reported on by the media. There has already been reports of British warplanes moving to cyprus to head to the region, a US Air Carrier going to Syria, and etc.

It was an unnecessary tweet (just like pretty much all of his), but it also is not a direct comparison to what he was referring to.

Now, if he was fighting Syria and said... "guess what, Syria! Homs is next on our list! See ya in 2 weeks!"

That would be directly applicable of a statement.

I agree it is a bad tweet. We don't have to try and make it look worse through not directly applicable connections.

Inb4 Trump does make that tweet above. lol
---

....doing things that nobody thought possible

lol, like what? playing golf?

also, why does he randomly capitalize the first letter of a word all the time? is trump kyle bowen?
---

remember when the trump drones said we absolutely needed to elect trump because hillary would be terrible for the US relationship with russia?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/984032798821568513

Our relationship with Russia is worse now than it has ever been, and that includes the Cold War.

...oh. ohhhhh.
---

Corrik posted...

The context was in relation to ISIS and announcing what city you would attack next and what time you would begin attacking it.

Nope.

Look at the tweet again. August 28, 2013.

This was regarding the Ghouta chemical attack. The one that took place in Syria on August 21st, 2013.

And in that instance Obama didn't specify any specific targets except to say that we should respond militarily and go after the ones who perpetrated the chemical attack that crossed the "red line" of using such chemicals.

..

This is unrelated to the dropping of leaflets in Mosul in October of 2016. That didn't happen for 3 more years.

And the leaflets were to limit civilian casualties. And if ISIS wanted to abandon their posts (some did) because they knew they attack was coming then so much the better.

.

The bottom line is that this situation he criticized Obama for is nearly identical to this one. Chemical attack takes place. We believe it to be perpetrated by Syria. We announce our intention to intervene.

And in 2013 he blasted Obama for doing the exact same thing he did 5 years later. Well not the exact same thing, when Obama mentioned the possibility of retaliation (which fell through at the time because of too much push back from other legislators) he did it in the appropriate forum and he did it with tact and did not go out of his way to incite the ire of other superpowers.

So that part was different.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

remember when the trump drones said we absolutely needed to elect trump because hillary would be terrible for the US relationship with russia?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/984032798821568513

Our relationship with Russia is worse now than it has ever been, and that includes the Cold War.

...oh. ohhhhh.

I am confused. What is the actual democrat position right now? That Trump is a Russian puppet or that Trump has made Russian relations worse than Hillary's no fly zone would have?

I don't think much will happen of this though. There will be some strikes, and it will be back to status quo.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Corrik posted...

The context was in relation to ISIS and announcing what city you would attack next and what time you would begin attacking it.

Nope.

Look at the tweet again. August 28, 2013.

This was regarding the Ghouta chemical attack. The one that took place in Syria on August 21st, 2013.

And in that instance Obama didn't specify any specific targets except to say that we should respond militarily and go after the ones who perpetrated the chemical attack that crossed the "red line" of using such chemicals.

..

This is unrelated to the dropping of leaflets in Mosul in October of 2016. That didn't happen for 3 more years.

And the leaflets were to limit civilian casualties. And if ISIS wanted to abandon their posts (some did) because they knew they attack was coming then so much the better.

.

The bottom line is that this situation he criticized Obama for is nearly identical to this one. Chemical attack takes place. We believe it to be perpetrated by Syria. We announce our intention to intervene.

And in 2013 he blasted Obama for doing the exact same thing he did 5 years later. Well not the exact same thing, when Obama mentioned the possibility of retaliation (which fell through at the time because of too much push back from other legislators) he did it in the appropriate forum and he did it with tact and did not go out of his way to incite the ire of other superpowers.

So that part was different.

I retract my statement then.
---

Corrik posted...

I am confused. What is the actual democrat position right now? That Trump is a Russian puppet or that Trump has made Russian relations worse than Hillary's no fly zone would have?

i don't necessarily self-identify as a democrat so i'm not sure.

my personal position is that trump is a moron and will probably randomly start WWIII with russia when putin insults him or whatever.
---

Speaking of (former) GOP Speakers...

https://twitter.com/SpeakerBoehner/status/984022770752290818
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

my personal position is that trump is a moron and will probably randomly start WWIII with russia when putin insults him or whatever.

Either that or with China when Bolton convinces him to invade North Korea.
---

Corrik posted...

I retract my statement then.

And I appreciate that. Just another reason to show that you actually do argue in good faith and aren't too proud to make or accept corrections when you say something.

Corrik posted...

I am confused. What is the actual democrat position right now? That Trump is a Russian puppet or that Trump has made Russian relations worse than Hillary's no fly zone would have?

This is an odd dichotomy, but my take on it is that Trump did have outside assistance during the election, and that he at least knew about some of the assistance, but that Russia may have provided a great deal of assistance even unbeknownst to Trump. Because from their perspective they have a candidate who owes them in some capacity (tax returns might clear this up?) and it behooved them to go above and beyond to get him in office.

But since then he has not been able to play ball like they wanted. During the campaign he pushed the "we'll be best friends with Russia" angle, but that never picked up traction so he wasn't able to run with it and through the last year of circumstances he just hasn't been able to align himself with them in the same way he said he could during his campaign.

At least that's my impression on it.
---

Syrian troops are going to Russian bases due to concerns of US military strikes being under way.
---

If only we could have caught them by surprise?

:D
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Corrik posted...

I retract my statement then.

And I appreciate that. Just another reason to show that you actually do argue in good faith and aren't too proud to make or accept corrections when you say something.

Corrik posted...

I am confused. What is the actual democrat position right now? That Trump is a Russian puppet or that Trump has made Russian relations worse than Hillary's no fly zone would have?

This is an odd dichotomy, but my take on it is that Trump did have outside assistance during the election, and that he at least knew about some of the assistance, but that Russia may have provided a great deal of assistance even unbeknownst to Trump. Because from their perspective they have a candidate who owes them in some capacity (tax returns might clear this up?) and it behooved them to go above and beyond to get him in office.

But since then he has not been able to play ball like they wanted. During the campaign he pushed the "we'll be best friends with Russia" angle, but that never picked up traction so he wasn't able to run with it and through the last year of circumstances he just hasn't been able to align himself with them in the same way he said he could during his campaign.

At least that's my impression on it.

But weren't they arguing not even months ago that Trump had to be a Russian puppet because Putin has "blackmail" on him.

That said, I think Russia was going to do whatever they could to help a Republican candidate in any capacity during that campaign. They didn't want Hillary in office from what it seems.
---

My take on it is that Trump is wildly exaggerating when he says our relations with Russia are worse than during the Cold War
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Just another reason to show that you actually do argue in good faith

lol

maybe this one time but otherwise...
---

Corrik posted...

But weren't they arguing not even months ago that Trump had to be a Russian puppet because Putin has "blackmail" on him.

I'm really not concerned one way or the other about that. I think there is enough real evidence in existence and we just need to wait for it to come out. The pee tape or whatever else may exist, or it may not, and it seems stupid to speculate. The existence of a pee tape is not in itself damning. I don't care who Trump does or does not let urinate on or near himself. But what would we damning is if campaign finance laws were flagrantly broken to allow Trump to receive financial assistance from Russia, or if meetings with russian agents did occur and they involved agreeing to the Russian assistance during the election.

Corrik posted...

That said, I think Russia was going to do whatever they could to help a Republican candidate in any capacity during that campaign. They didn't want Hillary in office from what it seems.

Right. The Russian assistance occurred. Their motive did not necessarily have to be blackmail for them to want to interfere in our election.

The question becomes to what extent was Trump knowledgeable about the assistance they were providing.

And with the election being as close as it was it's hard to imagine that their interference didn't actually affect the outcome. It was still legitimate votes cast by legitimate Americans resulting in the legitimate election of Donald Trump. But it upsets me to know that it was aided by targeted interference in swing states and that had they not interfered I think it would have gone the other way.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Just another reason to show that you actually do argue in good faith

lol

maybe this one time but otherwise...

Be glad for the one time then. I know it's not the first time I've seen Corrik make a retraction. And if he doesn't make the retraction in every single case he's still better off than those who never do.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

My take on it is that Trump is wildly exaggerating when he says our relations with Russia are worse than during the Cold War

Well, I don't think Russia has tried to put missiles in Cuba recently, so I will tend to agree they aren't there yet.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Corrik posted...

But weren't they arguing not even months ago that Trump had to be a Russian puppet because Putin has "blackmail" on him.

I'm really not concerned one way or the other about that. I think there is enough real evidence in existence and we just need to wait for it to come out. The pee tape or whatever else may exist, or it may not, and it seems stupid to speculate. The existence of a pee tape is not in itself damning. I don't care who Trump does or does not let urinate on or near himself. But what would we damning is if campaign finance laws were flagrantly broken to allow Trump to receive financial assistance from Russia, or if meetings with russian agents did occur and they involved agreeing to the Russian assistance during the election.

Corrik posted...

That said, I think Russia was going to do whatever they could to help a Republican candidate in any capacity during that campaign. They didn't want Hillary in office from what it seems.

Right. The Russian assistance occurred. Their motive did not necessarily have to be blackmail for them to want to interfere in our election.

The question becomes to what extent was Trump knowledgeable about the assistance they were providing.

And with the election being as close as it was it's hard to imagine that their interference didn't actually affect the outcome. It was still legitimate votes cast by legitimate Americans resulting in the legitimate election of Donald Trump. But it upsets me to know that it was aided by targeted interference in swing states and that had they not interfered I think it would have gone the other way.

I don't know that I would say it caused an effect on the outcome. At the end of the day, it was just likely a bunch of facebook spun/propaganda ads. Which were going on from both sides during the run-up to the election anyways, and types of ads that I still literally see even now without an election going on.

Some of the stuff I see on Occupy Democrats is easily on the same level.
---

Or maybe Russia simply isn't announcing their missile locations on twitter so we have no idea they are there. :D

(that was the last one, honest)
---