GM_Tood

 

What would be the best thing to do, Tood?

I think airstrikes against military targets, including airfields and planes. I don't see any other option that does not involve military action. We can't sit back and let Russia dictate the world's role in this region/Syria.

 

If not for the use of Chemical weapons, then I think it would have been same ol same ol for our involvement in Syria. Kinda sad imo.

 

Do I win a cookie?

Anyone been to one of these before? Looks cool.

That's another huge issue. If we take out Assad, who fills the vacuum?

Manaf Tlass

Have we bombed Assad to date?

Last Sept one of our Airstrikes killed ~60 Syrian military personnel by mistake. Other than that, we have not attacked any non-ISIS targets in Syria.

What would be the best thing to do, Tood?

I think airstrikes against military targets, including airfields and planes. I don't see any other option that does not involve military action. We can't sit back and let Russia dictate the world's role in this region/Syria.

If not for the use of Chemical weapons, then I think it would have been same ol same ol for our involvement in Syria. Kinda sad imo.

http://www.omaha.com/opinion/editorial-new-facebook-data-center-is-a-major-win-for/article_56319f28-90e7-5c4e-a67b-6f5e68cf84ff.html

Great get for Nebraska, and kudos to Papillion Mayor Black and his administration.

Yeah, I meant no ground troops...airstrikes only.

Syria

Libya

Somalia

Yemen

Each of the above countries have/had "some sort" of Russian backing when US dropped bombs on them. Full on military involvement, none that I could come up with other than Syria.

 

"Military Action" means boots on the ground? Runways/hangars/etc...airstrike the f out of them.

 

Maybe Trump should look to Russia as the previous administration did to broker a deal to cut the Syrian wmd stockpile? That worked.

 

Do you want another Vietnam? Russia is on Assad's side and has been throughout. And they've been killing thousands of civilians the whole time.

 

Right, because we have never thrown airstrikes on countries that have some sort of Russian backing.

So the US stance should be - sit back and let other countries handle it. I could be down for that. America First.

"Military Action" means boots on the ground? Runways/hangars/etc...airstrike the f out of them.

Maybe Trump should look to Russia as the previous administration did to broker a deal to cut the Syrian wmd stockpile? That worked.

That's a lot of hours of cable news. Every day?

Working from home allows for some extra TV watching.

 

 

There's a difference between healthy skepticism of the media and paranoia. The latter helps autocrats stay in power. Stop with the "mainstream media" nonsense. The ONLY thing that does is limit a person's intake of news by demonizing all but a narrow band of sources.

If the only place you get your news is from conservative media, or friends who only consume conservative media, how do you expect to be anything other than a conservative media drone?

Is that what the goal is here, to exist in an echo chamber of safe thoughts and ideas? Because those ideas are being warped, badly, but conservative media. They do not represent the ideals of Reagan or Bush that so many conservative Americans believe they adhere to.

I watch news channels such as CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and Cheddar on a daily basis. Anyone should be able to see the difference in the way news is reported/not reported on certain channels.

 

The goal should be to present factual/non-biased information to the American public. Can anyone here please provide us an outlet that you believe has the US citizens best interest at heart?

 

But anyways...I'll patiently wait for the Trump/Russia investigation findings to pass judgement.

Which one of those sources do you trust/rely on the most?

 

That's a tough one. I guess my honest answer would be none. Each outlet (as LOMS stated above) has some hidden agenda behind their reporting.

I would say my daily viewing habit would be Cheddar from 7:30-8:30, a mix of CNN/Fox/CNBC 11-1, and evening is a combo as there are certain anchors on each channel (Lemon, O'Reilly, Maddow) I cant stand, regardless of the story.

There's a difference between healthy skepticism of the media and paranoia. The latter helps autocrats stay in power. Stop with the "mainstream media" nonsense. The ONLY thing that does is limit a person's intake of news by demonizing all but a narrow band of sources.

 

If the only place you get your news is from conservative media, or friends who only consume conservative media, how do you expect to be anything other than a conservative media drone?

 

Is that what the goal is here, to exist in an echo chamber of safe thoughts and ideas? Because those ideas are being warped, badly, but conservative media. They do not represent the ideals of Reagan or Bush that so many conservative Americans believe they adhere to.

I watch news channels such as CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and Cheddar on a daily basis. Anyone should be able to see the difference in the way news is reported/not reported on certain channels.

The goal should be to present factual/non-biased information to the American public. Can anyone here please provide us an outlet that you believe has the US citizens best interest at heart?

But anyways...I'll patiently wait for the Trump/Russia investigation findings to pass judgement.

or maybe it was the weed...

Recently picked up a SIG P320 TACOPS 9mm and i like it over my M&P9 and XDM. Though, any of the three I would recommend.

I would suggest hitting a local range that rents out guns and try out a few.

Can anyone tell me what nationality or religion the man was who did this?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-22/london-terrorism-suspect-named-hate-preacher-abu-izzadeen

All I have been able to get so far....I would consider it unreliable until authorities officially announce the name.

The great part of this Nunes story is that the drones will lock in on "communications collected" and not read that IF it happened (and this guy "thinks" he uncovered it in a bunch of documents - which I think he was likely scouring because he is worried about himself) it was collected during legal monitoring going on with other individuals. Just wait for the outrage. This guy is still working for Trump. His opening statements pretty much said all this as well.

The outrage would not be because of legal FISA gathering of intelligence, it will be over the gathering of the intelligence that included US citizens (still legal) but those US citizens names being leaked....which is against the law.

I see Russia, especially under Putin, as the single biggest threat to American sovereignty right now. I can't imagine how anyone in America can be anything other than alarmed by Putin.

I agree.

The Democrats are going to do exactly what they said they needed to do on the stage last night - reform the party and redevelop a message that more people can get behind. Their policy is not far off. Millions of people still voted Democrat at the top of the ticket than Republican this year.

 

I watched the debate. Interesting mix of people. The chair is going to be either Perez or Ellison. Nobody else has the votes.

 

Perez had a pretty awful debate. He just seemed too cozy in Washington when everyone seems to be in a "toss them all out" mood. His answer about being with donors instead of marching with the people was really poor. Also couldn't really answer on the TPP, which is a dumb quagmire to get bogged down in at the moment.

 

Ellison did alright. He focused on jobs the most, which should be the focal point moving forward, IMO. A return to "It's the economy, stupid" could work quite well. However, him getting pinned about a quote on Bill Maher about "wishing his party would come out against the second amendment" was idiotic. I have no idea why he'd want that quote attributed to him, ever.

 

I was most impressed with Pete Buttigieg. He spoke the most like a human being to me, which is something sorely lacking in politics right now. I was also impressed with the woman from Idaho.

 

Tood, you're going to have an awful lot of egg on your face if the Trump-Russia connections crystallize. I do think it's an issue they can use. After 8 years of trying to convince people the last president was a secret gay Muslim Socialist from Kenya who was comin' fer yer guns, the GOP has made significant electoral gains. Why wouldn't the Democrats reciprocate?

The DNC need to fix their own house instead of pushing the Russian meddling. The general election was rigged because the people found out about how the DNC rigged the primary.

But, yes....if there is other connections that arise that would prove there were Trump/Russia ties I am all for that information to come out, and the necessary actions taken.

Trump made a splash last summer for saying "why not" on the transgender bathrooms question. Today his administration moves forward to undo the Obama administration's efforts to expand Title IX protection for transgender students, specifically their use of bathrooms according to their gender identity. Trump does this over the (rumored) objections of his education secretary Betsy DeVos.

 

As if it were not plain before...We should now know what Trump's words mean. Consider this the next time you entertain one of the ludicrous arguments floating around that Trump "is good for _____ people" based on some words he said.

 

For the record, I do not believe Trump is particularly anti-LGBT. However, he doesn't seem to really care. And that is in effect the same thing: not only is he allowing his administration to move aggressively in the opposite direction, he appears to be energetically driving this motion over in this case the potential objections of his most relevant cabinet member.

 

Hence why I think it's crucially important to hold people -- politicians and citizens alike -- accountable to the issues about which they claim to care.

He did it because Conservatives love States Rights, imo.

As I stated in another thread, I am one that understands that Russia did what it did to influence the Election.

Nothing to do with it? No, I can't say that. I think it had more to do with Trump vs. Hillary and who would be a better option in Putin's mind. Would Hillary keep/add to the sanctions, IMO yes. Will Trump look to limit/decrease the sanctions, IMO yes. Is Trump more open to working with Russia, I think so.

The question is why would either, as President, take these actions. I would hope to do what is best for America's interests within their Foreign Policies.

 

Russian technology/agents/etc actually hacked into voting machines and either changed peoples votes to Trump or rigged the actual votes in some manner? FALSE

Or is this proof about the misinformation campaigns/hacking? TRUE

 

Like this is the only US election where foreign countries meddled. We (CIA) do it to other countries as well....yawn. TRUE

 

About the sanctions....are they working? What do you expect the sanctions to accomplish? I think the sanctions basically give Putin some political cover with his own people as the citizens can blame Amerika for their deepening recession. Cut them off from the International bank transfer system...that would turn the screws on Putin.

You don't have to hack into a voting machine to interfere with an election.

 

It doesn't matter what we've done to other country's elections, that isn't relevant to the discussion. It doesn't matter who has interfered domestically with US elections, that isn't relevant to the discussion.

 

You need some short term history lessons if you are asking these questions about Russia. This wasn't the first time Obama placed sanctions on them. The US and much of the world placed sanctions on Russia after Crimea and Malyasia Airlines was shot down. While the Russian economy began to stall before the sanctions, it has had negative growth since then. The sanctions along with low energy prices have really hurt Russia and are costing them billions. In this day and age, with out full on war, this is the only way we are going to send a message to them not to f#*k with us. Putin should be in trouble with his people, but he's done so well controlling the media and killing opposition that there is no one to really oppose him.

 

No, I do not need a lesson on the Russian sanctions. I asked two questions. I assume by your reply that your answer to question 1 is yes, and the answer to question 2 is Don't mess with the US.

I don't think the sanctions are working (other than compounding the problems with the Russian economy). Are they still f'ing with us? And my option above is what I would consider a better sanction to impose.

 

We have the vote was rigged by Russians.

You may want to pump the brakes on making fun of this until our Intelligence Community releases their findings.

 

I am in the side that knows the Russians did what they did to "influence" the election. But, is this a strategy the Dems can raise the banner for and move forward?

I am all for someone to come out of the weeds and take charge of the Party.