Third GOP senator says he'll support Iran war powers resolution
Young is the third Republican senator to say he will support the revised resolution. Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) have both said they will support it.
Democrats need four Republican senators to break with them to pass the resolution, which would require Trump to end hostilities against Iran within 30 days unless he gets Congress to sign off on them.
Several GOP senators, including Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), have not said how they would vote on the resolution.
------------------
So..I guess we'll have boots on the ground in a few days...for the next phase of "Wag the Dog."
- - - Updated - - -
And the list is getting longer; Up to 10 GOP senators consider bucking Trump on war powers
Not just pissed at Trump. Moscow Mitch is feeling the heat too...
Retired Marine General Jim Jones, former President Barack Obama’s National Security Adviser, praised President Donald Trump in an interview this week for killing Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani
“I think what the administration did in the Soleimani case is absolutely correct,” Jones said on Sunday at an Atlantic Council event. “I think it’s the right thing to do.”
A reporter asked Jones, “Do you wish that you had done it in your time in government?”
“Well, I think we were doing it in the sense that we were really looking hard for Osama bin Laden,” Jones responded. “While I was in the White House, we found the house that he was and took another year to be pretty sure that he was there. So, I think the Obama administration tried to find the terrorist that was the most wanted guy in the world.”
“Soleimani is now the next guy, so I give [Trump] credit for doing that and I think it was the right thing to do and I think it’s, as articulated by the president, it’s a potential game changer,” Jones continued. “I would not let up. I would not let up.”
“And I would not listen to the appeasers of the world who kind of want to calm the waves and [who say] let’s get back to normal business and then you have Iran using its proxies to spread terror around the world, interdict shipping, shoot down drones, and things like that,” Jones said. “Those days I think are over and I hope Iran understands that.”
Why do you never link the cite from you quotes? I'm just curious - I believe this one only because it's so easily verified.
This whole subject is fascinating. We're seeing people taking different positions with different people than usual in the politics forum. For instance, I agree with TexasLies here that the assassination was a good thing - a good policy that is. Poorly done, of course, because what else can Cheeto-in-Chief do than fuck up anything he tries out (the man bankrupted a casino, and the Trumpkins call him a business magnet - rofl).
But this issue has made for some interesting bedfellows.
- - - Updated - - -
Still an attack - you can't deny it happened.
- - - Updated - - -
Irrelevant of course unless Moscow Mitch brings it for a vote. It's interesting that more GOP Senators are going against the Trump grain. Almost as if they see the tide turning.
Because apparently he likes using the Daily Wire, which explains a fucking lot.
You copy everything, and click paste and search in a new tab, and the ONLY article that comes up is Daily Wire. https://www.dailywire.com/news/absol...ling-soleimani
Ben Shapiro and his Daily Wire idiots like Michael Knowles aren't known for truth.
People confuse my name all the time, they think I mean that Texas rules!!!!! Which it does. But my first few posts on this board were about how things were done in Texas. I digress....
I do not include links because I do not feel the need to do work for others. Most things I post are easily available by searching the exact phrase in a quote or the exact title. It's just spoonfed millennials want everything handed to them. And half the time I link stuff people ignore it anyways, so I just stopped. By the way, the quote above mentions the Atlantic council event. But for you, I will make an exception:
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2020/01/1...mes-jones.html
Well I have a few monikers for you based on your posting history, but since we're keeping it civil tonight, I'll pass on them now.
I'm not sure you're going to answer this, but why is it you feel others have to prove your point for you? By not linking a cite to your statement/claim (and thank you btw for doing so in the above) you make it tough to believe you. And your defense above, that you don't feel the need to do the work for others, just sounds hollow...it's your point, you should back it with cites. Especially when in posts even tonight you ask for cites from others.
Just curious....
So you did not watch the video from cnbc. Okay since it's almost word for word what he says. Like I posted above, even when I provide links, you guys don't really use them, so why bother?
- - - Updated - - -
And I asked for cites from others accusing me of doing something. You literally ignored the link I gave you, I posted a transcription of what he word for word said with edits for clarity. That;s okay. That's how this board works. Even given an innocuous cnbc link, I get accosted.
Because you don't cite correctly. You just admitted you didn't cite what you claimed happened, only that it was "almost" what happened. Which isn't the same. And I don't even care about the point you were making re the quote. The bigger issue is that you don't seem to understand why people on the interwebs insist on cites for claims and quotes. It's to verify authenticity.
I didn't ignore the link, I thanked you for it. It was someone else that was questioning where it came from, and they followed it, and it was wrong.
You citing something that didn't verify what you claimed - and then admitted it wasn't accurate, but "almost accurate" - and now you're wondering why you're getting "accosted" for "almost" being accurate. Stop me if I'm missing something.
That is because it is edited for clarity, as most transcriptions are. You got me on minutia technicalities, but again you asked for a link, I gave you a link.
Nothing is ever good enough for people who are not anti Trump. Just because I do not hate Trump does not mean I like everything he does. But I get reported for the slightest thing because I don't hate Trump. It's not like I am Endus, the pretend bastion of all things hypocritical. He started an offtopic argument, then reported the argument to get Connal banned, knowing he himself would not get banned. That is what people who do not hate Trump have to put up with on this board of inequality
Last edited by TexasRules; 2020-01-15 at 08:14 AM.
We do - @Orbitus followed the CNBC link and discovered you weren't citing correctly. The quote you listed was from a different source. You even admitted it - again - above.
What we want, what every thinking person wants, is accuracy in claims. Linking cites to claims is the only way anyone will believe you on a forum. Which is why people jump on you when you don't link correctly - they jump on me, too. They jump on everyone.
- - - Updated - - -
Right - and I thanked you for it.
The bigger question is why do you feel the need for others to prove you right? Why do you feel like you don't need to provide proof of your claims?
- - - Updated - - -
Could you link some of those inaccurate "ramblings"? For this topic, we have independent sources telling us Trump may have assassinated the General to distract from the Impeachment.
I know you disagree with many of the verified claims against Trump, but disagreeing with them doesn't take away the veracity of the claims.
- - - Updated - - -
No. You're confusing transcriptions with quotes. You're taking what the GOP told you to think about the Ukraine transcriptions (which are edited for clarity) and applying it to quotes taken from an interview by the media. This is a classic example of you not being in possession of the reality around you, falling for the web of lies the GOP has shoved down your throat.
Good work. I think that the Thwart idea of getting us to list each and every lie and misstatement of Trump supporters is backfiring against them. You are not the only one to be persistent and resourceful in pointing out each and every lie that people like TexasRules posts. And his "Orangeman Bad" comments are probably the most honest comments in any of his posts. Just not in the way he wants it to mean.
A "big bad guy". Seriously, you think this is a video game or something?
This is a little different from shooting insurgents in Iraq, your government baited a member of a foreign government who you are not at war with into a trap and assassinated him. I really shouldn't have to explain the difference, but I guess you think this is a cartoon or something so if he's a bad person then suddenly this is fine and a good idea from a foreign policy perspective.
Well the US earned worldwide condemnation, got itself kicked out of Iraq (so much for the last twenty years of policy in that country) and managed to unite a bunch of factions in Iran that were beginning to turn against the government there. You managed to make Iran... IRAN look like the "good guys" to put it terms simplistic enough for you to understand. It's also created an easy propaganda win for jihadi recruitment. This is what happens when you make stupid decisions in foreign policy. Your enemies capitalise on them.
So what's the plan next? Going to find every asshole in power in the world and use the US armed forces to assassinate them? Good news, you wouldn't even have to leave the country, plenty there to keep you busy for at least a year or two.
- - - Updated - - -
I was talking about Clint Lorance, the war criminal Trump pardoned while his own fellow soldiers wept.
Not that I'm afraid to joke about anything on the internet, least of all your joke of a President.
But you know, dodge the actual argument any way you have to I suppose.
Democrats Block A Vote To Support Iran Protesters
https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/14/d...an-protesters/
"Never get on the bad side of small minded people who have a little power." - Evelyn (Gifted)