(09-03-2024 07:56 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-30-2024 03:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-30-2024 02:50 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  Trump tried to blame the families for his campaign releasing a tik tok commercial from their kids funeral? What a piece of shite.

“When asked by Burns if his campaign should have released the photos and videos taken at Section 60 of the cemetery, Trump responded, “Well, we have a lot of people, you know, we have people, TikTok people, you know, we’re leading the internet. That was the other thing. We’re so far above her on the internet.”

When pressed on whether it was appropriate to share such images from a solemn location, Trump deflected, suggesting that the responsibility might lie with the Gold Star parents who had invited him, rather than his campaign.

“I don’t know what the rules and regulations are. I don’t know who did it. And it could have been them. It could have been the parents,” Trump said. “It could have been somebody else.”


https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/vid...8274885907

Yeag, "It could have been the parents". When the poster was the account of Donald Trump, and another posting account was the campaign.

But.... "It could have been the parents".

There is no culpability with the parents -- they had every right to invite him.
Trump had every right to go and to participate.

He had *no* fing right to make a campaign video out of the event outside the area of the Unknown Soldier ceremony. None. Zeero. Zilch.

Shitbird tries to blame the parents -- the lengths the guy goes to to avoid any responsibility whatsoever s just staggering.

Let alone the fact that a former president supposedly doesn't know any of the protocol and rules at ANC. I guess he also missed hearing them when he visited on the 1st and 2nd anniversary of these deaths. Oh...wait...

Or the other times he visited the graves of the dozens and dozens that died under his watch. Oh...wait...

What could possibly be different this time around?

He just used Biden’s example for the rules. What’s good for the goose, you know.

You and the 7th grader will change no one’s mind. You do realize that, right?

(09-01-2024 09:20 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(09-01-2024 08:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-01-2024 06:12 PM)boss man Wrote:  

(09-01-2024 05:57 PM)TripleA Wrote:  370 posts.

Attorney tanq has 76 of them. That's 20.5% of the total.

Just DAYAM.

That tends to happen when you have 6 simpletons responding in various contortive responses on one perspective, and pone of a few on the other.

Kind of common sense. Oh wait..... Kyra...... never mind.

You should have never come back. Just as I warned you with your ML diatribes, you will never salvage your reputation here. You are a loser and we all know it. But you do you Clarence.

Uh, last time I checked you have to have a conscience first.

(09-02-2024 11:24 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(09-02-2024 11:20 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

Read the Constitution and then tell us how the VP got service members killed. Cite specifics please.

She may not have gotten soldiers killed, but her dereliction of duty on the border has gotten scores of folks killed. That’s irrefutable.

(09-02-2024 01:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-02-2024 01:14 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-02-2024 11:24 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(09-02-2024 11:20 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

Read the Constitution and then tell us how the VP got service members killed. Cite specifics please.

(09-02-2024 11:46 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-02-2024 11:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-02-2024 11:24 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  Read the Constitution and then tell us how the VP got service members killed. Cite specifics please.

She was in the room when decisions were made, and she certainly had input.

Per her, "last person in the room." And she bragged about it until people died.

and said she was comfortable making those decisions. you would think horses ass, being "military", would hold that against her. Which is why I doubt he was military.

I find it interesting that the same people who criticized GWB's service in the National Guard want to portray Walz as some kind of war hero for his.

Both were cowards. One going Natural Guard to avoid Vietnam. The other basically quitting to avoid being deployed.

We are where are in society because we select leaders who lead from the rear.

(09-03-2024 08:09 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Pssst...trump was involved in the deal to leave...he played a role in the release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners...but HE had no input. Gotcha.

Ah, the master of smoke screens, rabbit trails and fox holes is back to run interference.

Never gets old spewing sewage does it?

Last time I checked Trump was NO WHERE NEAR the decision making process concerning Afghanistan.

You can take all of your garbage and bury it in your own backyard.

We see right through your lies and innuendos.

Tommy example

Texas A&M lost to Notre Dame because Jimbo Fisher didn’t make the right personnel moves before he was fired.

You’re an IDIOT and anyone who swallows your sewage is as big of an idiot as you.

No longer being nice when everytime I hear the word Afghanistan all I see is a visual of a man hanging from OUR HELICOPTER lynch mob style.


Stop trying to deflect and place the blame squarely where it lies or sew your mouth shut so you can stop making a FOOL of yourself.

(09-03-2024 08:26 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(09-02-2024 11:24 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(09-02-2024 11:20 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

Read the Constitution and then tell us how the VP got service members killed. Cite specifics please.

She may not have gotten soldiers killed, but her dereliction of duty on the border has gotten scores of folks killed. That’s irrefutable.

Other than the fact that it's VERY refutable.

The VP has no power to make any immigration policy.
She was not appointed to be the/a "border czar." No such thing exists or existed.
She WAS tasked with looking into why 3 Central American countries were seeing an exodus...and in that respect, she actually did make some headway.

Oops.

But she was never the “border czar”
Despite the media calling her that


I cannot wait for Trump to call her that to her face next Tuesday if the whore actually even shows up for the embarrassment she’s going to get

(09-03-2024 09:01 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

But she was never the “border czar”
Despite the media calling her that


I cannot wait for Trump to call her that to her face next Tuesday if the whore actually even shows up for the embarrassment she’s going to get

Oh, right, the right-wing and/or failing MS media called her that...so it was so.

And I wouldn't get my hopes up. The man whore is the one asking for the mics to be muted. He's also not even campaigning this week except for like 1 thing currently scheduled. He's failing badly...making ignorant statements every time he opens up his pie hole, pissing of the pro-life and military vets in his base...confessing to more crimes...

429 posts.

Btw...since this thread never stops and I saw a new interview...Tulsi was at ANC all day with Trump and said she saw no altercation at all. Lots of other topics of interest there, too. With the infamous Dana Bash. Who has a decidedly different attitude than she had with Kamala.

(09-03-2024 09:55 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Tulsi was at ANC all day with Trump and said she saw no altercation at all.

Well then, case closed. Nothing happened. The Army and ANC are both lying.

MAGA are scum.

Dude, think for a second. You're taking the word of Tulsi over the Army and ANC. Disgraceful.

(09-03-2024 09:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 09:55 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Tulsi was at ANC all day with Trump and said she saw no altercation at all.

Well then, case closed. Nothing happened. The Army and ANC are both lying.

MAGA are scum.

Dude, think for a second. You're taking the word of Tulsi over the Army and ANC. Disgraceful.

Tulsi and Trump and two Gold Star families and every other person in that entourage, vs. one person trying to block passage, acting like a mental illness patient, and an ANC statement saying it was against the rules to film for political purposes in ANC, EVEN THOUGH BIDEN DID THE SAME THING in 2020.

What a doofus stooge you are.

(09-03-2024 09:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 09:55 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Tulsi was at ANC all day with Trump and said she saw no altercation at all.

Well then, case closed. Nothing happened. The Army and ANC are both lying.

MAGA are scum.

Dude, think for a second. You're taking the word of Tulsi over the Army and ANC. Disgraceful.

Lt. Colonel Gabbard. Yes. We are taking her word for it along with dozens of other witnesses…

(09-03-2024 10:21 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 09:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 09:55 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Tulsi was at ANC all day with Trump and said she saw no altercation at all.

Well then, case closed. Nothing happened. The Army and ANC are both lying.

MAGA are scum.

Dude, think for a second. You're taking the word of Tulsi over the Army and ANC. Disgraceful.

Tulsi and Trump and two Gold Star families and every other person in that entourage, vs. one person trying to block passage, acting like a mental illness patient, and an ANC statement saying it was against the rules to film for political purposes in ANC, EVEN THOUGH BIDEN DID THE SAME THING in 2020.

What a doofus stooge you are.

Trump didnt film for political purposes. The law says a campaign cant film there, and the Trump campaign did not.

As far as section 60, Arlington knows their rules and knows Trump didnt break them. They stated, falsely, that the families had requested no photography in section 60. The families refuted that claim.

Basically, Arlington nkew they had nothing on Trump and what he did there, and then tried to mislead everyone. Arlington was covering their butts because it blew up in their face, and they lied by saying they thought the families wanted no photography or video, and thats NOT what the families had said.

(09-03-2024 10:28 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 10:21 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 09:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 09:55 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Tulsi was at ANC all day with Trump and said she saw no altercation at all.

Well then, case closed. Nothing happened. The Army and ANC are both lying.

MAGA are scum.

Dude, think for a second. You're taking the word of Tulsi over the Army and ANC. Disgraceful.

Tulsi and Trump and two Gold Star families and every other person in that entourage, vs. one person trying to block passage, acting like a mental illness patient, and an ANC statement saying it was against the rules to film for political purposes in ANC, EVEN THOUGH BIDEN DID THE SAME THING in 2020.

What a doofus stooge you are.

Trump didnt film for political purposes. The law says a campaign cant film there, and the Trump campaign did not.

As far as section 60, Arlington knows their rules and knows Trump didnt break them. They stated, falsely, that the families had requested no photography in section 60. The families refuted that claim.

Basically, Arlington nkew they had nothing on Trump and what he did there, and then tried to mislead everyone. Basically, Arlington was voering their butss by saying they thought the families wanted no photography or video, and thats NOT what the families had said.

The film they took was used for political purposes. It was posted in a Trump campaign ad.

(09-03-2024 10:35 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 10:28 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 10:21 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 09:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 09:55 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Tulsi was at ANC all day with Trump and said she saw no altercation at all.

Well then, case closed. Nothing happened. The Army and ANC are both lying.

MAGA are scum.

Dude, think for a second. You're taking the word of Tulsi over the Army and ANC. Disgraceful.

Tulsi and Trump and two Gold Star families and every other person in that entourage, vs. one person trying to block passage, acting like a mental illness patient, and an ANC statement saying it was against the rules to film for political purposes in ANC, EVEN THOUGH BIDEN DID THE SAME THING in 2020.

What a doofus stooge you are.

Trump didnt film for political purposes. The law says a campaign cant film there, and the Trump campaign did not.

As far as section 60, Arlington knows their rules and knows Trump didnt break them. They stated, falsely, that the families had requested no photography in section 60. The families refuted that claim.

Basically, Arlington nkew they had nothing on Trump and what he did there, and then tried to mislead everyone. Basically, Arlington was voering their butss by saying they thought the families wanted no photography or video, and thats NOT what the families had said.

The film they took was used for political purposes. It was posted in a Trump campaign ad.

Thats not breaking the law. A campaign can not film there, thats the law. A non campaign video or photos being used in a political ad is not breaking the law.

Campaigns have been using film from the cemetery since forever. Including Biden*.

Arlington knows this, which is why they were trying to say the families didnt want photography or video. That was the only issue they could hold against Trump in section 60. But that was a lie, and was refuted by the families.

Yet another example of manufactured outrage, imo.

(09-03-2024 10:39 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 10:35 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 10:28 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 10:21 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 09:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Well then, case closed. Nothing happened. The Army and ANC are both lying.

MAGA are scum.

Dude, think for a second. You're taking the word of Tulsi over the Army and ANC. Disgraceful.

Tulsi and Trump and two Gold Star families and every other person in that entourage, vs. one person trying to block passage, acting like a mental illness patient, and an ANC statement saying it was against the rules to film for political purposes in ANC, EVEN THOUGH BIDEN DID THE SAME THING in 2020.

What a doofus stooge you are.

Trump didnt film for political purposes. The law says a campaign cant film there, and the Trump campaign did not.

As far as section 60, Arlington knows their rules and knows Trump didnt break them. They stated, falsely, that the families had requested no photography in section 60. The families refuted that claim.

Basically, Arlington nkew they had nothing on Trump and what he did there, and then tried to mislead everyone. Basically, Arlington was voering their butss by saying they thought the families wanted no photography or video, and thats NOT what the families had said.

The film they took was used for political purposes. It was posted in a Trump campaign ad.

Thats not breaking the law. A campaign can not film there, thats the law. A non campaign video or photos being used in a political ad is not breaking the law.

Campaigns have been using film from the cemetery since forever. Including Biden*.

Arlington knows this, which is why they were trying to say the families didnt want photography or video. That was the only issue they could hold against Trump in section 60. But that was a lie, and was refuted by the families.

Why are you arguing with me about this? All I said was Trump used the film for political purposes, just like Biden did. That's a fact.

I was criticizing Biden, not Trump. I didn't say anything about breaking the law or anything else you're rebutting.

(09-02-2024 01:14 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-02-2024 11:24 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(09-02-2024 11:20 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

Read the Constitution and then tell us how the VP got service members killed. Cite specifics please.

(09-02-2024 11:46 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-02-2024 11:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-02-2024 11:24 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  Read the Constitution and then tell us how the VP got service members killed. Cite specifics please.

She was in the room when decisions were made, and she certainly had input.

Per her, "last person in the room." And she bragged about it until people died.

and said she was comfortable making those decisions. you would think horses ass, being "military", would hold that against her. Which is why I doubt he was military.

Anyone who was served understands the Chain of Command. There are times for advisors to speak but once the Commander makes a decision those orders are followed/carried out. Unless they are unlawful you follow all orders. You think it is different when the CiC issues orders? Doubt all you want buttercup. I signed the blank check to the United Staes of America. Even for dunces like you.

(09-03-2024 10:56 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(09-02-2024 01:14 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-02-2024 11:24 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(09-02-2024 11:20 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

Read the Constitution and then tell us how the VP got service members killed. Cite specifics please.

(09-02-2024 11:46 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-02-2024 11:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-02-2024 11:24 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  Read the Constitution and then tell us how the VP got service members killed. Cite specifics please.

She was in the room when decisions were made, and she certainly had input.

Per her, "last person in the room." And she bragged about it until people died.

and said she was comfortable making those decisions. you would think horses ass, being "military", would hold that against her. Which is why I doubt he was military.

Anyone who was served understands the Chain of Command. There are times for advisors to speak but once the Commander makes a decision those orders are followed/carried out. Unless they are unlawful you follow all orders. You think it is different when the CiC issues orders? Doubt all you want buttercup. I signed the blank check to the United Staes of America. Even for dunces like you.

So, did Harris lie when she was the last person in the room and she was comfortable making the decisions on the afghan pullout?

Some people want the title, but not the accountability that comes with it. Just like how Tim Walz wanted to be called Command Sergeant Major, but never did anything to earn the title.

So then, if Harris has no command experience, why should she be considered for president? You are basically admitting she has no experience.

(09-03-2024 11:02 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-03-2024 10:56 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(09-02-2024 01:14 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-02-2024 11:24 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(09-02-2024 11:20 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

Read the Constitution and then tell us how the VP got service members killed. Cite specifics please.

(09-02-2024 11:46 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-02-2024 11:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  She was in the room when decisions were made, and she certainly had input.

Per her, "last person in the room." And she bragged about it until people died.

and said she was comfortable making those decisions. you would think horses ass, being "military", would hold that against her. Which is why I doubt he was military.

Anyone who was served understands the Chain of Command. There are times for advisors to speak but once the Commander makes a decision those orders are followed/carried out. Unless they are unlawful you follow all orders. You think it is different when the CiC issues orders? Doubt all you want buttercup. I signed the blank check to the United Staes of America. Even for dunces like you.

So, did Harris lie when she was the last person in the room and she was comfortable making the decisions on the afghan pullout?

Some people want the title, but not the accountability that comes with it. Just like how Tim Walz wanted to be called Command Sergeant Major, but never did anything to earn the title.

So then, if Harris has no command experience, why should she be considered for president? You are basically admitting she has no experience.

You want to hold Harris and Walz responsible for things where Trump and Pence get passes. Your selective outrage is visible to anyone that cares to look.

Experience!?!?. Let’s be honest. Nobody has experience for POTUS. Even 2nd terms have no idea what to expect because the world just happens.

Was Trump experienced when elected? How was the “outsider that was going to drain the swamp” experienced? 1st term judged to be the worst, by experts, not internet bros.

Trump was “active duty” while Harris is currently NG, about to be called up for active duty.