The Trump Effect

I think that's what he's saying. It'd be totally asymmetric, which means the enemy gets dirty and hides behind civilians

 

Can you break down for me why you've shared this (twice)? What is it proving or demonstrating?

Keep in mind, I don't even like Pelosi.

 

Sorry - I honestly didn't know I'd shared it twice.

I appreciate Pelosi coaching him on what to say, the stupidly terrible job that she did in disguising it, and see it as just further proof of theatrical pandering of sorts.

Mainly, I just thought it funny.

 

She's all show.

 

Trump Supporter Pepper Sprayed While Giving Interview at UC-Berkeley

Ironically, the chicken shit sprays her almost immediately after she gives props to those non-violent anti-Milo protestors, also in attendance.

Sorry, I can't embed Twitter video.

Link: https://mobile.twitter.com/janeygak/status/826998516144697344

 

What a sneaky cowardly bastard. Needs to have pepper spray applied liberally.

 

There is a reason that they are running around in mask.

To be fair I think they are Anarchist who would be action this way regardless; rather than protesters.

 

No one should be wearing masks. Things get dangerous with perceived anonymity

 

Navy Seals Fly Trump Flag in Convoy

(Forgive the [itch bay]ing guitar riff)
[video=youtube;S8N6RnG-G2A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8N6RnG-G2A[/video]

Obviously, this is completely unauthorized conduct, and those found to be responsible should be appropriately reprimanded.

Go Navy.

Link: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...itary-convoy-flew-trump-flag-convoy/97388366/

 

Video is gone.

I do not like it. I don't think it is a big deal, though.

 

Amazing how the press will give praise/assign blame for SOC missions. As if giving a green light has any influence on the planning or execution of said mission.

 

Part of the military fetish we have in politics.

 

I couldn't agree more. But, I think that the generally accepted rule - not saying it's right, but simply most prevalent - is that the POTUS receives the dis/credit if it happens on her / his watch. Given how nebulous that is, and barring the obvious outlier where the POTUS clearly and directly failed (e.g. JFK and the Bay of Pigs), I'm ok with that, as long as it's consistently applied.

Obama had jack [penis] to do with killing Bin Laden, but it happened on his watch, and he gets credit for it. But it also took legit and massive stones to authorize that op, as it was executed. He's due a lot of credit for that, just as he'd have been big-time blamed had it went south.

 

The more we find out about the timing of the intel, the lowe the stones requirement gets.

 

I have no problem with giving credit or discredit, but only to a reasonable limit either way. Obama didn't get in the way and was willing to take the risk. He didn't find the intel and he didn't pull the trigger. The best Presidents make sure they have good leaders under them, and then support them.

I see some people criticizing Trump for the casualties, I see some praising him for the successful retrieval of intel. All Trump did was make the call. Whether it was the right or wrong one, we will probably never know. He has clearly taken command without trepidation, and that is generally a positive thing. The worst thing you can do is look like you're not willing to use one of our greatest advantages.

 

In an explicit warning to North Korea, U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Friday said any use of nuclear weapons by the North on the United States or its allies would be met with what he called an "effective and overwhelming" response.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mattis-c...d-talks-japan-skorea-034729990--politics.html

 

And this is how it should be. It has worked wonders to keep nuclear weapons off the battlefield for 70 years.

 

I'm glad he is on our side

 

Me too

 

I don't know what to make of your responses when you only quote and link something.