On 10/23/24 7:56 AM, Skeeter wrote:
> In article <vfalgh$1lvf0$1@dont-email.me>,
> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>
>> On 10/22/24 5:17 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>> In article <vf926l$1itmh$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On 10/22/24 10:15 AM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>> In article <vf83ld$1f1j7$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/21/24 11:18 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <vf6vgd$15slb$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/21/24 7:58 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <vf6f48$ufke$1@dont-email.me>, recscuba_google@huntzinger.com
>>>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/24 8:49 AM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <vf5e9i$jsii$1@dont-email.me>, recscuba_google@huntzinger.com
>>>>>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/24 9:26 PM, pothead wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-20, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <vf3sbi$iukn$1@dont-email.me>, recscuba_google@huntzinger.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/24 12:11 PM, pothead wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-20, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <67147f6a$2$2760$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 19, 2024 at 7:06:32 PM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <6714658e$0$1787$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <67145de2$0$212405$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 19, 2024 at 5:46:33 PM MST, "marika" wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <JpYQO.243587$1m96.51316@fx15.iad>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 2024 at 1:35:02 PM MST, "-hh" wrote <vep81m$28g54$1@dont-email.me>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 8:05 PM, pothead wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/24 5:54 PM, pothead wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-15, citizen winston smith <sss@example.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2024 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're now trying to claim that the "what has changed?" is that there's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adults now seeking to have genetically normal kids undergo sex change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Were you "in the navy" Huntzy?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/nmGuy0jievs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cuz you are as gay as a swabbie with no shore leave.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll bet hh volunteered to take other sailors "night in the barrel", if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get my drift.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pun intended.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, we certainly do: you know that you're mad because you can't dispute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facts on the topic, so you try to "Shoot the Messenger" instead. Lame.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mad?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hardly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I stopped getting mad when I was about 12 yo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a waste of energy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So if you're denying that it is due to anger, then what *was* your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation to sling such a lame Ad Hominem? After all, you did choose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to post, so there must have been a reason. So if its not you being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upset & butthurt again, then just what was your motivation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He seems unaware of his own emotional states... unless you have a signifiant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue pretty much all people experience anger from time to time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I prefer to look up from my spreadsheet and observe what the world is is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's something you seem unable to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary: I find that worldviews are expanded by using objective
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data, and helps to reveal my own potential personal biases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where Pothead makes things up, such as his recent claims that I am somehow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsible for Carroll's flood bot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can spin your numbers all day and night but the fact remains that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the number 1 issue with voters is the economy/inflation and the polls
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show that people blame Biden/Harris for the mess.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that is a fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And people are _never_ deceived? Or make a mountain out of a mole hill?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Case in point:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Initially Biden was trying to convince the people that Bidenomics was working.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So then, just what is the definition of "working" here?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because if it is real wage increasing to catch up with inflation, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that it is already 98% of the way there by one metric, and is 102%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the way there by another metric.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are still struggling based on Reagan and his absurd trickle down. Trump's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work to redistribute money to the very rich did not help. Nor did the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pandemic. Nor the war in Ukraine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ironically, the Russians think this has been a very bad year for them also.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are going through some things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The war they started is not going well for them. Turns out just tossing more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people to die at a war is not always a winning strategy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amongst other nonfun things, the Russians have bombing their own people in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> territories like Bilhorod.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the past year.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The world should be harsher toward their aggression. Trump clearly would not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be if he wins.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No wars when he was in office.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In April 2017, Trump ordered missile strikes on a Syrian airbase
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a war.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, Trump warned the Syrians not to use poison gas on their own citizens.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They tested Trump and he delivered on his promise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the difference between Trump and Biden.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Our ships are being fired upon in the Middle East and Biden does virtually nothing other than continue his weak policy of appeasement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump ramped up military operations in Afghanistan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To end a war.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And Biden/Harris managed to botch that one as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since you pendants are using the "not a war" bit because Congress
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never declared one, nothing about Afghanistan counts for Biden either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 13 dead soldiers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1/5th as many casualties as Trump had during his tenure.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So that makes it ok? You idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then shut up about it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not the one who's been harping on those 13 casualties.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because you don't care.
>>>>>
>>>>> <crickets>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Incorrect; it has been addressed elsewhere.
>>>
>>> No matter. We are right here.
>>
>> Elsewhere within this thread, as well as what followed below:
>
> Can't be aresed to read all that propaganda.

YA "La, la, la ... I can't cope with facts which shake my worldview".

>>>> You've screamed "FAIL" without identifying any of the pre-operation
>>> loss
>>>> parameters that they supposedly failed to meet. You've tried to imply
>>>> that the pre-Op plan was for zero casualties, but you've not cited any
>>>> documents which substantiate that.
>>>>
>>>> Given how many troops die each year in non-combat, including during
>>>> training operations, we know that the operational plan couldn't have
>>>> been planning for zero losses.
>>>>
>>>> Case in point:
>>>>
>>>> "Across the Department of Defense, from 2006 to 2020, 5,605 service
>>>> members were killed in training accidents. This represents 32% of all
>>>> reported active-duty military deaths for that time period and is double
>>>> the percentage of troops killed in action."
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.audacy.com/connectingvets/articles/how-many-troops-are-dying-in-training-accidents-and-why>
>>>>
>>>> FYI, that's an average of 374 training deaths/year.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and that 4,231 deaths listed as "self-inflicted", those are
>>>> essentially suicides: 282 per year, which is 5+ per week.
>>>
>>> Blah blah, Joe fucked up.
>>
>>
>> So you're blowing off those who lost their lives in the Service while
>> outside of direct combat operations ... how myopic & petty of you.
>
> Joe blew them off.
>>
>> The reality is that all levels of service have hazards where one's life
>> is potentially on the line, because one needs to train as how one fights
>> in order to be the most effective. A EA-18 Growler crew died last week
>> and here you're a turd going "blah blah" belittling their Service.
>
> I didn't belittle anything except Joe.

Untrue.

>>>>>>>>>>> BUTWHATABOUT
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because I'm showing how you're so selectively pearl-clutching.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I bet you wish you even knew what that meant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It means you're hamming it up as a drama queen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is that what it means? What shithole do you live in?
>>>>>
>>>>> <crickets>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I missed reading that particular line. Are you trying to imply
>>>> that I don't know contemporary English because I live in some backwater
>>>> someplace? If so, lead by example by telling us what allegedly
>>>> non-shithole county you live in yourself, and just how that's relevant
>>>> to knowledge of the English language in the USA. Good luck.
>>>
>>> So you do live in a shithole.
>>
>>
>> Nope, I just pushed you to lead by example and you chose to bail & fail.
>
> No bail. I'm a liberal.

Liberal...what?
By what you've been saying, its as a bullshitter & liar.

>>>>>>>>>>>> And it happened while upholding what Trump had obligated the USA to do
>>>>>>>>>>>> under the February 2020 Doha Accord.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit Joe fucked up. Even the "generals" said so.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why the scare quotes around "generals"? Are these some of Trump's very
>>>>>>>>>> fake "But Sir!" (he said with a tear in his eye), or do you have actual
>>>>>>>>>> citations with names, dates, and quotes?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Plus when did these leaders first oppose? Back at the Doha Accord?
>>>>>>>>>> Because Doha was when the final ball was committed & put in motion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I wasn't there.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, so you now can't actually produce any of these "generals". Check!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well they don't live here.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, looks like I overlooked your weak deflection attempt here.
>>>
>>> They don't.
>>
>> They don't...what?
>
> Live here. Try to keep up.

And just where is "here", Ivan? North Elbonia?

Because you've whined about how you can't afford anything anymore, it
certainly isn't in any of these districts:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_counties_in_the_United_States>

>> Do you mean that the people you're referring to aren't even American
>> generals? Name them. And from a relevance standpoint, explain why you
>> think they matter more to us than our own current American generals.
>>
> Did I say they weren't American? No you did.

Incorrect, for I didn't constrain the which generals: I noted that
those who aren't American probably don't have relevance, so you'd better
also include relevance if your generals aren't American ones.

>>
>>>> Bottom line remains that you can't/won't actually name who this
>>>> supposedly authoritative "generals" actually were. Shocking! /s
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you know their names? Why should I?
>>
>> Because it was your unsubstantiated claim to support with facts.
>
> Is that a rule?

It is longstanding USENET posting etiquette, rookie.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This hh assclown is a massive idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Congress never declared war during Vietnam.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nor did Congress declare war for Korea. Yet you keep on trying to use
>>>>>>>>>>>> "not a war" pedantry to overlook Trump's military engagements.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What wars did he start?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What wars did Biden start?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I never said he started any.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then why did you ask what wars Trump started?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's called a question dummy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hypocritical double-standard much?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, a question.
>>>
>>> <crickets>
>>
>> A 'question' whose sole purpose was your attempt to defect.
>
> So you can't answer. Ok then.

Incorrect, which is why you've now tried to move the goalposts to
failing to stop wars everywhere in the world.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Which includes 65 soldiers who died in Afghanistan during Trump.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not a war.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then by your own standard, Biden's 13 losses during the final evacuation
>>>>>>>>>> don't count either.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They are dead because of his fuck up. I know you don't care. Like
>>>>>>>>> Hillary said about the troops that died at Benghazi. "at this point what
>>>>>>>>> difference does it make?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On the contrary: while you've been alluding to them being suckers and
>>>>>>>> losers (TM), I've cared enough to put their sacrifice into mission
>>>>>>>> context of how many civilians were successfully rescued. Don't you
>>>>>>>> remember how I've posted a challenge to all comers to go identify any
>>>>>>>> equivalent military evacuation under fire to have had a better
>>>>>>>> (casualty:rescue) ratio? Or is this another case of your selective
>>>>>>>> senility again?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What a load. People died because Joe fucked up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you think its BS, stop dodging and just simply prove me wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Show us what other military evacuation under fire had a better ratio of
>>>>>> rescues vs losses: Afghanistan had 122,000 rescued for 13 losses, which
>>>>>> is a ratio of 9,385 saved for each loss. List all of those operations
>>>>>> which have been so vastly better executed that this one was a 'fuck up'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe fucked up. This is settled.
>>>>
>>>> Your saying so doesn't settle diddly squat. Cry harder, "Joe".
>>>
>>> It does. This is not debatable.
>>
>> Only in your dreams. Reality demands better.
>
> That leaves you out.

So prove me wrong by showing everyone just what other military
evacuation under fire had a better ratio of rescues vs losses.

>>>>>> FYI, from the COLA archives:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "...if one wants to callously compare the two in terms of the
>>>>>> ratio of successfully evacuated -vs- US lives lost, there were 4 deaths
>>>>>> in the Saigon airlift to save 7,000 people, so Vietnam's metric was
>>>>>> 1750:1. In contrast, Afghanistan was 13 for 122,000 which is 9400:1 ...
>>>>>> 5x better."
>>>>>
>>>>> No one cares.
>>>>
>>>> You care, which is why you keep on bleating that line, despite how
>>>> you've been unable to actually prove your claim with operationally
>>>> relevant comparative performance information.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Joe fucked up, that's all I need to know.
>>
>> Only in your rabid dreams. Reality demands better.
>
> Joe fucked up and now he's been booted.
>>
>>
>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.linux.advocacy/c/gqTggM-UC_M/m/4Y9ynM54GQAJ>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, this challenge has been out there for losers to try to debunk
>>>>>> since September 1, 2021 ... and not one blathermouth has succeeded.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe fucked up.
>>>>
>>>> Whatever you say ... "Joe".
>>>
>>> See? You agree.
>>
>> "C'mon grandpa, its time for you to go back to bed."
>
> Cute.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do they call it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> These libbys are fools.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As opposed to you two being hypocrite.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No wars caused by Trump.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So? What wars did Biden cause? Also zero, right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I never said he did. But he sure allowed them to happen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, Trump did certainly permit a lot of bad shit, including the ongoing
>>>>>>>> Mideast mess which centers around Iran's surrogates, which is on Trump
>>>>>>>> for pulling out of that nuclear deal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BUTWHATABOUT TRUMP!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "No wars caused by Trump" <-- you started these comparisons.
>>>>>
>>>>> None.
>>>>
>>>> Confession by "Joe Skeeter" that his attack attempt has backfired.
>>>
>>> Trump didn't start any wars. What is so hard to figure out.
>>
>> What's so hard to figure out that Biden didn't start any wars either, so
>> your claim has zero contrast to be relevant?
>
> He allowed them to start.

And just which wars were these?

Be specific, because if you're trying to refer to Israel/Hamas, that's a
false claim because that conflict has been ongoing for decades.

So here's a list for you to show us specifically which wars originally
started during Trump & Biden, so that you can point to these "new" ones
which are still ongoing which in your opinion Biden should have intervened:

Good luck!

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars:_2003–present#2020–2024>

>>>>>>>>>>>> For you're also being deliberately blind to how Trump failed to deliver
>>>>>>>>>>>> on his campaign promise to exit Afghanistan.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Joe fucked that up.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How could Biden have "fucked up" Trump's campaign promise to be out of
>>>>>>>>>> Afghanistan by the end of Trump's term? Be specific.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why did Biden spend his first day signing off all Trumps EOs? He could
>>>>>>>>> have changed that too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why did Trump spend his first weeks signing off on EOs that undid
>>>>>>>> Obama's works? FYI, one of these eliminated an SEC based fiduciary
>>>>>>>> responsibility on your Investment Broker when he gives you advice.
>>>>>>>> This could be why you've been whining about not being as well off today.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and he runs from the question and a BUTWHATABOUT
>>>>>> "No wars caused by Trump" <-- you started these comparisons.
>>>>>
>>>>> None.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Confession by "Joe Skeeter" that his attack attempt has backfired.
>>>
>>> I made you repeat yourself.
>>
>> You bitched that I didn't reply to every time you repeated yourself, and
>> now you're bitching if I don't.
>
> Cry a river.
>>
>> Meantime, you're simply repeating empty, unsubstantiated claims: if
>> your claims had means of material substantiation, you easily could have
>> done so, instead of dodging.
>>
> You really are new to this huh?
>>>>>> Plus we know that Trump cancelled a bunch of Obama's stuff, so you've
>>>>>> failed to show how Biden was in any way meaningfully different.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why didn't he change the withdrawal then?
>>>
>>> <crickets>
>>
>> Because you apparently didn't know that that it was moved back, from May
>> to August, despite that action having a higher risk of escalation ..
>> which is precisely what happened.
>>
>
> Joe fucked up.
>
>> But this still doesn't address the point that Skeeter is trying to avoid
>> in the below, which was that Trump orders for a Dec 2020 pullout, but
>> Trump then reversed that order. Care to come up with a better
>> explanation for why?
>
> Why Joe fucked up? Ask him.

I've read the AAR. Have you?

Meantime, why did Trump keep on changing the rules for the processing of
Afghan Special Immigrant Visas? FYI, that was ruled to have been
illegal ... back in 2019:

<https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-admin-broke-law-visa-delays-afghans-iraqis-who-worked-n1057846>

>>>>>>>>>> Also note that Trump had issued orders to the Pentagon to be out by
>>>>>>>>>> December 2020, but then rescinded that order. Why didn't he keep his
>>>>>>>>>> campaign promise? Perhaps because he thinks his legacy would have been
>>>>>>>>>> one of someone who "runs away"? Or because since there hadn't been
>>>>>>>>>> adequate planning done, military losses then would've been even worse?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cry a river. What does that have to do with now?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It illustrates how Trump could have met his campaign promise but
>>>>>>>> chickened out. Trump is terrified to be ever be seen as weak, which is
>>>>>>>> why he's easily manipulated by that personality flaw.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He is speaking somewhere everyday. Twice today. Sorry but you have
>>>>>>> nothing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His speech: "You want fries with that?" /s
>>>>>>
>>>>> You ignore the fact that he is somewhere everyday drawing crowds. Why do
>>>>> you ignore that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Already did address it: Trump's team has reportedly been paying for
>>>> people to attend rallies, but they get up and leave as soon as their
>>>> Venmo accounts arrive. Perhaps that's why this past week Elon Musk has
>>>> added a $1M per day 'random' petition signers lottery prize.
>>>
>>> Bullshit. I watch them all. You are telling a lie.
>>
>>
>> If true, then how many $1M checks has Elon handed out so far?
>> 1? 2? 3? 4? 5?
>
> I don't know. Not my circus.

So when you claimed that you've watched them all, are you lying or are
you so senile that you've already forgotten what happened this week?

>> If you "watch them all", then you must have seen videos like this one:
>>
>> <https://apnews.com/video/elon-musk-constitutions-donald-trump-donald-trump-es-pennsylvania-9b9df1e63b504028b1c03d99846736ea>
>
> Edited videos?

Doesn't change what was shown in the clip.

>>>>>>>>>>>> And blind to how there were thousands of Trump-freed Taliban military
>>>>>>>>>>>> which contributed to the very deaths you're claiming to be so upset about.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But allowing crooks to cross the border and rape and kill is ok?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh, look: its yet another attempt to run & change the subject!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, you just want to avoid it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except for how I then confronted it head on, still quoted below:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fun fact:
>>>>>>>>>> most crooks smuggling fentanyl across the border are US citizens.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yea right.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Need cite? Here ya go, luzer:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.cato.org/blog/fentanyl-smuggled-us-citizens-us-citizens-not-asylum-seekers>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and? I'm supposed to believe that? Besides no matter what color they are
>>>>>>>>> they are still crossing illegally.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course *you* don't believe anything that goes against your beliefs.
>>>>>>>> But facts don't give a damn if your feelings get hurt, snowflake.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not a liberal you non original halfwit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet you've still been triggered: that's what makes you a snowflake.
>>>>>
>>>>> Laughing at your bull isn't triggered. Stop lying.
>>>>
>>>> Still doesn't change the fact that many border crossers are requesting
>>>> asylum which makes them a legal immigrant, and this has been the law in
>>>> the USA for the past 40+ years.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, you pass at a legal crossing point.
>>
>> Show us where in the law that's actually a legal requirement.
>>
>> Here's the text of the Statute - just point out that specific line:
>>
>> <https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-94/pdf/STATUTE-94-Pg102.pdf>
>
> I used to live on the border and those are the rules....

Yet you still can't prove that it is a requirement in the law, by
quoting the specific line in the Statute. Goalpost move inbound!

>>>>>>>>>> Much of our border dilemma is due to decades of systemic under-funding
>>>>>>>>>> of the Judicial department who's responsible to process refugee claims,
>>>>>>>>>> primarily since the Refugee Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-212), which
>>>>>>>>>> amended the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bull shit. Follow the fucking law.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This *is* following the law. Get a clue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I explained. You choose to ignore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL, your "explanation" was merely a partisan claim.
>>>>
>>>> Go look it up yourself to see that it is the truth. I've already
>>>> provided the Wiki page to Public Law 96-212 ... and here it is again:
>>>>
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_Act>
>>>>
>>>> And here's the link to the original law:
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-94/pdf/STATUTE-94-Pg102.pdf>
>>>>
>>>>> Translation: You're right so will post this crap in response.
>>>>
>>>> Of course I'm correct.
>>>
>>> Nope. Nice spin.
>>
>> It ain't spin to note that you've not provided any objective facts which
>> have debunked points that I've claimed in this thread.
>
> You amuse me.
>>
>>
>>>>>> I "ignored" it by showing you that the arrest data shows that the
>>>>>> fentanyl smuggling problem at the US-Mexico border is being primarily
>>>>>> perpetrated by US Citizens.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's bullshit. Deal with it.
>>>>
>>>> Translation: "La la la, I can't deal with reality!". /s
>>>
>>> I made you copy me.
>>
>> YA evasion attempt.
>
> You copied me.
>>
>> In the meantime, the facts still remain clear:
>>
>> "Overall, the dataset reveals that out of 9,473 individuals associated
>> with a fentanyl seizure, 7,598 were US citizens (80.2 percent). Source:
>> Customs and Border Protection, Freedom of Information Act request
>> CBP-FO-2023-005880, 2024."
>>
>> <https://www.cato.org/blog/us-citizens-were-802-crossers-fentanyl-ports-entry-2019-2024>
>>
>> And if you don't like that reporting source, the information you need to
>> independently confirm it for yourself is listed above: just submit a
>> FOIA request to ask for a copy of what their FOIA request had received:
>> its ID# is CBP-FO-2023-005880, 2024.
>>
>> Thus, you don't need to believe me, or CATO, but can see it for yourself
>> that it isn't reality, but your belief which is bullshit.
>
> I know what I know and that's good enough.

Even though whatever you 'know' is false in reality.

>>>>>>>>> Cross at legal crossing points and
>>>>>>>>> get vetted. If you try to cross anywhere else you are breaking the law
>>>>>>>>> and go to jail or get sent back. That worked for a long time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Need cite? <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_Act>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This systemic under-funding has resulted in a years-long case backlog,
>>>>>>>>>> and even though the Judicial approval rate of refugee cases is under 5%,
>>>>>>>>>> they're legally allowed to reside in the USA until their case is heard.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps the reason why this situation has been allowed to continue is
>>>>>>>>>> because its good for business: they can hire those peoples cheaply
>>>>>>>>>> (they're 7.65% cheaper than US Citizens at the same hourly rate), plus
>>>>>>>>>> most (~95%) of the time, the businesses know that they don't really have
>>>>>>>>>> to worry about having to provide raises or pay longer term benefits.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...and of course Skeeter can't bring himself up to comment on the plain
>>>>>>>> truths mentioned above, particularly in light of how he knows that Trump
>>>>>>>> directed Johnson to kill the immigration reform bill earlier this year.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was a bill full of pork. Stupid spending.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pork? List them.
>>>>>
>>>>> More money going to other countries is not a border bill.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> List them.
>>>>
>>>> Second request, dodger
>>>
>>> You know it. You want to ignore it.
>>
>>
>> We all see that you can't substantiate your claim. And you know it.
>
> Cute.

Nevertheless, still not an ounce of alleged pork produced.

>>>>>> From a fiscal standpoint, "stupid spending" was forgiving fraudulent
>>>>>> PPP loans in Oct 2020, instead of prosecuting those criminals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Likewise, the 2017 TCJA added $2T to the national deficit, and because
>>>>>> actual revenues are still lower than the original 2017 CBO baseline
>>>>>> ($28,490B vs $29,170B) it not only didn't deliver its "trickle down"
>>>>>> promises, but actually harmed the US economy. Data's from here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://taxfoundation.org/blog/2017-tax-law-revenue/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, none of this diversion attempt from Skeeter touches the main
>>>>>> point made, which is that many of the immigrants aren't illegal in the
>>>>>> first place, but are in limbo for 3-5 years awaiting their court date,
>>>>>> and during that wait, US businesses exploit them as a cheap labor pool.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am talking about the ones who enter other than a legal entry point.
>>>>> Remember that numbskull?
>>>>
>>>> So? Show us where in the law that's actually a legal requirement.
>>>> Here's the text ... point out the specific line:
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-94/pdf/STATUTE-94-Pg102.pdf>
>>>
>>> So allow 1000s across with no vetting? Great, you support the gangs and
>>> raping and killing.
>>
>> Gosh, if only there was legislation put forward this year to provide
>> more resources for timely vetting ... but Skeeter says that it shouldn't
>> be funded, because it was laden with pork that no one can find.
>
> True. It was. Just follow the law. Something liberals avoid.

The law says that all who request refugee/asylum have to be let in.

The law says that they can't be kicked out until they've had their claim
vetted and had their day in court.

Do you even know what percentage of arrivals aren't actually "illegal"
because of this legal requirement?

Or do you not know because you don't care, because you don't want to
actually follow longstanding US Law?

>>>>>>>>>>>> But yeah sure, the next time you see a Vet, you'll say your performative
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Thank you for your service" to make you - not them - feel better:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Active Duty knows that it is bullshit, because you don't really support
>>>>>>>>>>>> the troops, as evidenced by your support of political candidates who
>>>>>>>>>>>> stole DoD housing funds to build a wall, and who try to strip services &
>>>>>>>>>>>> funding from the VA.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You never served so shut the fuck up.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Unlike you, I've sworn the Oath to uphold & defend the US Constitution.
>>>>>>>>>> I know that that Oath is a lifetime commitment and live so accordingly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yea whatever.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gosh, what a gracious apology that was from you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was more like a middle finger. I dont believe you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, we all know that you're just trying to be rude...and failing even at
>>>>>> that: you're simply reinforcing what we already knew, which is that
>>>>>> your "thank you for your service" is performative bullshit, as you turn
>>>>>> on anyone who you just worshiped if they say things you don't like.
>>>>>
>>>>> TINW
>>>>
>>>> ...and?
>>>
>>> You're alone.
>>
>> Doesn't matter to me: I oppose evil no matter how much I'm outnumbered.
>
> Yet you support the current admin?

Depends on the policy in question, doesn't it?

>>>>>>>> Now you might be starting to have a clue as to why Active Duty turned
>>>>>>>> away from supporting the GOP back in 2020, and there's not a chance in
>>>>>>>> hell that they're going to go back now in 2024. Case in point:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Trump?s popularity slips in latest Military Times poll ? and more
>>>>>>>> troops say they?ll vote for Biden"
>>>>>>>> - 31 AUG 2020
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> cite:
>>>>>>>> <https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/08/31/as-trumps-popularity-slips-in-latest-military-times-poll-more-troops-say-theyll-vote-for-biden/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FYI, the poll they also listed showed Biden +3.9 points over Trump.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All something that means nothing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It shows that the GOP has lost support from their traditional military
>>>>>> members base. And your deflection attempt illustrates your desperation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. They support him liar.
>>>>
>>>> Claim not substantiated
>>>
>>> No need. It's the truth.
>>
>> Yet you can't show it to others.
>
> I don't need to.

Its because you can't, not because you won't.

>>
>> In the meantime...
>>
>> <https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/10/trump-military-generals-hitler/680327/>
>
> I sure am making you work hard.

Nah.

>>>>>>> So why were they booing her at he rally?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gosh, what another vague allusion without any substantiation.
>>>>>> How convenient for you!
>>>>>
>>>>> I watched it idiot. They were booing her.
>>>>
>>>> Still yet another vague allusion without substantiation:
>>>> Which alleged rally when? What context? What timestamp? etc.
>>>
>>> It was a rally the other day moron. She also pissed off some people when
>>> someone yelled "Jesus is Lord" and she said "you're at the wrong rally"
>>>>
>>>> Because they were probably booing when she mentioned Trump, or the
>>>> mascara-laden gender-affirmed Boy Wonder.
>>>
>>> HAHAHAHA Trump is all she talks about.
>
> <crickets>
>>>>
>>>> Without a cite from Youtube/etc, you got nothing credible. Again.
>>>
>>> I do. Deal with it. I saw it.
>>
>> "Mooom! Grandpa is repeating himself ... again!"
>
> I saw it. You didn't.

Except for how you now can't remember it, despite prompting with videos.

>>
>> Meantime, these aren't the generals that you are looking for:
>>
>> ?VoteVets has a unique authenticity. It has built the clout of veteran
>> voices and challenges the fiction that most or all of the military votes
>> red. In fact, progressive and Democratic veterans are passionate and
>> highly persuasive?rare but powerful qualities in campaigns against
>> Republicans.?
>>
>> US NAVY ADM. (RET) MIKE MATHIS
>>
>> <https://votevets.org/about>
>>
>> <https://votevets.org/candidates>
>> <https://votevets.org/candidates/kamala-harris>
>>
>>
> TRUMP 2024

No, the above citation shows that American military veterans are
supporting Harris in 2024, not Trump.

-hh