I posted this in another thread yesterday, but, in retrospect think it deserves a thread of its own, so:
From yesterday's N.Y. Times:
I Ran the C.I.A. Now I'm Endorsing Hillary Clinton.
By MICHAEL J. MORELL, AUG. 5, 2016
During a 33-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, I served presidents of both parties — three Republicans and three Democrats. I was at President George W. Bush's side when we were attacked on Sept. 11; as deputy director of the agency, I was with President Obama when we killed Osama bin Laden in 2011.
I am neither a registered Democrat nor a registered Republican. In my 40 years of voting, I have pulled the lever for candidates of both parties. As a government official, I have always been silent about my preference for president.
No longer. On Nov. 8, I will vote for Hillary Clinton. Between now and then, I will do everything I can to ensure that she is elected as our 45th president.
Two strongly held beliefs have brought me to this decision. First, Mrs. Clinton is highly qualified to be commander in chief. I trust she will deliver on the most important duty of a president — keeping our nation safe. Second, Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security.
I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.
I also saw the secretary's commitment to our nation's security; her belief that America is an exceptional nation that must lead in the world for the country to remain secure and prosperous; her understanding that diplomacy can be effective only if the country is perceived as willing and able to use force if necessary; and, most important, her capacity to make the most difficult decision of all — whether to put young American women and men in harm's way.
Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important colleagues on the National Security Council. During the early debates about how we should respond to the Syrian civil war, she was a strong proponent of a more aggressive approach, one that might have prevented the Islamic State from gaining a foothold in Syria.
I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, "Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner."
In sharp contrast to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump has no experience on national security. Even more important, the character traits he has exhibited during the primary season suggest he would be a poor, even dangerous, commander in chief.
These traits include his obvious need for self-aggrandizement, his overreaction to perceived slights, his tendency to make decisions based on intuition, his refusal to change his views based on new information, his routine carelessness with the facts, his unwillingness to listen to others and his lack of respect for the rule of law.
The dangers that flow from Mr. Trump's character are not just risks that would emerge if he became president. It is already damaging our national security.
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was a career intelligence officer, trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities by complimenting him. He responded just as Mr. Putin had calculated.
Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia's annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States.
In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.
www.nytimes.com
The endorsements for Hillary just keep rolling in. Even a staunch Republican newspaper in Houston Texas has endorsed her. How anyone can consider voting for Trump is beyond me at this point.
Quote from: Locutus on August 07, 2016, 01:01:30 PM
The endorsements for Hillary just keep rolling in. Even a staunch Republican newspaper in Houston Texas has endorsed her. How anyone can consider voting for Trump is beyond me at this point.
Neither one is worth the powder and shot to....well you know. Either way it goes this country is in more trouble than it's in now.
Quote from: me on August 07, 2016, 08:13:50 PM
Neither one is worth the powder and shot to....well you know. Either way it goes this country is in more trouble than it's in now.
That's especially true if Trump is elected.
Quote from: me on August 07, 2016, 08:13:50 PM
Either way it goes this country is in more trouble than it's in now.
The country is not in trouble now...it's just fine.
Quote from: Exterminator on August 08, 2016, 08:04:31 AM
The country is not in trouble now...it's just fine.
That's because you live in a bubble and believe everything the mainstream media says.
Quote from: me on August 08, 2016, 01:41:31 PM
That's because you live in a bubble and believe everything the mainstream media says.
No, I live (and work) in the real world. How is our country in trouble in your opinion?
Quote from: me on August 08, 2016, 01:41:31 PM
That's because you live in a bubble and believe everything the mainstream media says.
You're the one who's living in a bubble. :yes: you got your head up your ass, come out and breath some fresh air. :spot: You never had it so good. You sure got better than your parents and grandparents. Tell me when you had it worse under the Democrats. Why don't you dance for us, Sweetie Pie. :pigdance:
Quote from: Exterminator on August 08, 2016, 02:34:58 PM
No, I live (and work) in the real world. How is our country in trouble in your opinion?
Terrorists, economy, unrest, debt, and no leadership just for starters.
Quote from: me on August 08, 2016, 05:25:33 PM
Terrorists, economy, unrest, debt, . . .
It isn't just us. You really need to pay attention to world news. . . :roll eyes: In fact, we're doing much better than most.
Quote from: me on August 08, 2016, 05:25:33 PM
Terrorists, economy, unrest, debt, and no leadership just for starters.
We have had terrorist under George W. Bush, remember 9/11 :doh: Remember the economy under George W. Bush. :puke: How much did Ronald Reagan leave, George H. Bush, Nixon, George W. Bush leave us in debt. :007: We sure had a lot of leadership under Ford, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Bush. They are the reason you dumbass Republicans think it so bad. :rolleyes: God damn it! :biggrin:
Quote from: Locutus on August 07, 2016, 01:01:30 PM
The endorsements for Hillary just keep rolling in. Even a staunch Republican newspaper in Houston Texas has endorsed her. How anyone can consider voting for Trump is beyond me at this point.
:yes: :smile: There's more. Yesterday, while the news talkers were going on and on about Hillary lying about those e-mails, and Trump was talking (reading from the teleprompter) about his plans for making America great again, I heard this on CBS radio and then found it on line:
50 Republican National Security Officials Eviscerate Trump In Open LetterTrump "would be the most reckless President in American history," they write.
"EDITION
US
The Huffington Post
08/08/2016 03:28 pm ET
Christina Wilkie
National Political Reporter, The Huffington Post
Dozens of the Republican Party's most experienced national security officials will not vote for GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, they wrote in an open letter released Monday.
"We are convinced that [Trump] would be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country's national security and well-being," said the former officials, many of whom held top positions in the George W. Bush administration.
"Most fundamentally, Mr. Trump lacks the character, values, and experience to be President," they added. "He weakens U.S. moral authority as the leader of the free world. He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and U.S. institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary."
Signers include some of the best known intelligence, defense and security experts of the past two decades: Michael V. Hayden, the former director of both the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency; Michael Chertoff and Tom Ridge, both of whom served as secretaries of Homeland Security during the Bush administration; Dov Zakheim, a former under secretary of defense; John D. Negroponte, a deputy secretary of state and a former director of national intelligence; Eric Edelman, a top national security adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney; and Robert Zoellick, a former deputy secretary of state, United States trade rep and president of the World Bank.
The letter, which was first reported on by The New York Times, represents yet another blow to Trump's ongoing effort to win over top Republicans. That job that has become significantly more difficult in recent weeks, as Trump has feuded with the family of a fallen soldier and threatened repeatedly to abandon NATO.
The missive also raises questions about who might agree to serve in a hypothetical Trump administration and offer the former reality TV star advice on national security issues.
Trump has repeatedly sought to distance himself from some of the most controversial policies of the Bush administration, such as the war in Iraq, which Trump claims he opposed in 2003. Even so, it's safe to assume that Trump's campaign would have welcomed support from top members of the national security apparatus.
The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment about the letter. "
Quote from: me on August 08, 2016, 05:25:33 PM
Terrorists, economy, unrest, debt, and no leadership just for starters.
There has always been terrorism; (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction#German_Autumn) you just weren't aware of it. I was because a large part of my job as an Army M.P. in Europe was providing security for our troops, their families and our installations.
The economy is fine. Unemployment is low, the stock market continues to break records and corporate profits are as good as they ever have been. If you and those around you aren't feeling the benefits, maybe...just maybe...it's time you start to reconsider conservatives' claims about trickle down economics because clearly it doesn't work.
According to FBI statistics, violent crime has been on the decline in this country for decades. What you call unrest only seems so because the internet gives us access to more information faster than we had before.
Debt is caused by increased spending, especially when combined with decreased revenues. Every Republican administration in the past 30 years has increased the size of government and spending more than every Democratic administration. Waging war against sovereign countries who are no threat to the U.S. doesn't help either.
Somehow, all of the above were accomplished despite the current administration having been obstructed by Congress at every turn. I would submit that shows a great deal of leadership.
Now that your talking points have been debunked, I will ask again: how is our country in trouble?
Quote from: Exterminator on August 09, 2016, 08:34:43 AM
Now that your talking points have been debunked, I will ask again: how is our country in trouble?
....and crickets. :rolleyes:
Quote from: libby on August 09, 2016, 12:32:46 AM
:yes: :smile: There's more. Yesterday, while the news talkers were going on and on about Hillary lying about those e-mails, and Trump was talking (reading from the teleprompter) about his plans for making America great again, I heard this on CBS radio and then found it on line:
50 Republican National Security Officials Eviscerate Trump In Open Letter
Trump "would be the most reckless President in American history," they write.
"EDITION
US
The Huffington Post
08/08/2016 03:28 pm ET
Christina Wilkie
National Political Reporter, The Huffington Post
Dozens of the Republican Party's most experienced national security officials will not vote for GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, they wrote in an open letter released Monday.
"We are convinced that [Trump] would be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country's national security and well-being," said the former officials, many of whom held top positions in the George W. Bush administration.
"Most fundamentally, Mr. Trump lacks the character, values, and experience to be President," they added. "He weakens U.S. moral authority as the leader of the free world. He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and U.S. institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary."
Signers include some of the best known intelligence, defense and security experts of the past two decades: Michael V. Hayden, the former director of both the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency; Michael Chertoff and Tom Ridge, both of whom served as secretaries of Homeland Security during the Bush administration; Dov Zakheim, a former under secretary of defense; John D. Negroponte, a deputy secretary of state and a former director of national intelligence; Eric Edelman, a top national security adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney; and Robert Zoellick, a former deputy secretary of state, United States trade rep and president of the World Bank.
The letter, which was first reported on by The New York Times, represents yet another blow to Trump's ongoing effort to win over top Republicans. That job that has become significantly more difficult in recent weeks, as Trump has feuded with the family of a fallen soldier and threatened repeatedly to abandon NATO.
The missive also raises questions about who might agree to serve in a hypothetical Trump administration and offer the former reality TV star advice on national security issues.
Trump has repeatedly sought to distance himself from some of the most controversial policies of the Bush administration, such as the war in Iraq, which Trump claims he opposed in 2003. Even so, it's safe to assume that Trump's campaign would have welcomed support from top members of the national security apparatus.
The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment about the letter. "
Like this publiciation or this reporter can be trusted. If she would lie like in this story below she would lie about Trump also.
http://www.ammoland.com/2013/03/huffington-post-reporter-christina-wilkie-doubles-down-on-antis-gun-lies/#axzz4GtavpOoW
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/29/neil-heslin-father-of-newtown-victim-heckled_n_2572503.html
Full testimony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvT9peqTM5E Do you hear him getting heckled? I wouldn't believe anything that publication or Christina Wilkie put out.
Quote from: me on August 09, 2016, 11:48:25 PM
I wouldn't believe anything that publication or Christina Wilkie put out.
That's the problem with you. You don't believe anything even when it's proven factual. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Locutus on August 10, 2016, 08:38:54 AM
That's the problem with you. You don't believe anything even when it's proven factual. :rolleyes:
Locutus do you think that if you wrote the truth on a piece of burning and flaming cardboard and shoved it up where :me: has her head? :haha: Do you really think she would even read it. :read: :spot:
Quote from: Locutus on August 10, 2016, 08:38:54 AM
That's the problem with you. You don't believe anything even when it's proven factual. :rolleyes:
A lie is a lie and she's proved to be a liar as well as the publication for publishing it so why should I trust anything they publish?
Quote from: me on August 10, 2016, 12:10:14 PM
A lie is a lie and she's proved to be a liar as well as the publication for publishing it so why should I trust anything they publish?
Here you go, stupid:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/08/politics/republican-national-security-letter-donald-trump-election-2016/index.html
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-08/50-former-gop-national-security-officials-slam-trump-in-open-letter
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-top-gop-security-advisors-warn-trump-is-1470687070-htmlstory.html
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3007589/Nationalsecurityletter.pdf
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/top-republican-gop-50-officials-warn-donald-trump-national-security-risk-dangerous
http://www.businessinsider.com/gop-national-open-letter-donald-trump-2016-8
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-security-idUSKCN10J2EH
https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-national-security-trump-reckless-000000096.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/card/50-top-gop-officials-trump-would-be-most-reckless-president-n625626
http://time.com/4444125/trump-gop-security-experts/
Quote from: Locutus on August 10, 2016, 08:38:54 AM
That's the problem with you. You don't believe anything even when it's proven factual. :rolleyes:
"Studies have shown that people who lack expertise in some area of knowledge often have a cognitive bias that prevents them from realizing that they lack expertise. As psychologist David Dunning puts it in an op-ed for Politico, "The knowledge and intelligence that are required to be good at a task are often the same qualities needed to recognize that one is not good at that task — and if one lacks such knowledge and intelligence, one remains ignorant that one is not good at the task. This includes political judgment." Essentially, they're not smart enough to realize they're dumb."
Quote from: Exterminator on August 10, 2016, 12:49:38 PM
Yep...still!
She's never been able to coherently state here "policy objections" before, so I'm not sure why we would expect anything different now.
Quote from: me on August 10, 2016, 12:10:14 PM
A lie is a lie and she's proved to be a liar as well as the publication for publishing it so why should I trust anything they publish?
For what it's worth, my brother, who is a conservative and the Special Agent in Charge of Investigations for the Overseas Operations Division of the U.S. Department of State (and knows more about Benghazi than any of us ever will), agrees with the assessment of these 50 individuals. This is my real brother...you know...same parents...grew up together...that sort of thing...not like one of your typical nebulous sources of information which are usually something along the lines of your 2nd cousin's barber's ex-wife's Facebook friend. :biggrin:
Quote from: Exterminator on August 10, 2016, 03:05:05 PM
...not like one of your typical nebulous sources of information which are usually something along the lines of your 2nd cousin's barber's ex-wife's Facebook friend. :biggrin:
:rotfl: :yes:
Quote from: Exterminator on August 10, 2016, 12:46:36 PM
"Studies have shown that people who lack expertise in some area of knowledge often have a cognitive bias that prevents them from realizing that they lack expertise. As psychologist David Dunning puts it in an op-ed for Politico, "The knowledge and intelligence that are required to be good at a task are often the same qualities needed to recognize that one is not good at that task — and if one lacks such knowledge and intelligence, one remains ignorant that one is not good at the task. This includes political judgment." Essentially, they're not smart enough to realize they're dumb."
Which is exactly ya'll believe anything the libs spew.
Quote from: me on August 10, 2016, 04:42:30 PM
Which is exactly ya'll believe anything the libs spew.
Nice try, stupid: A neuroscientist explains what may be wrong with Trump supporters' brains (http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/a-neuroscientist-explains-what-may-be-wrong-with-trump-supporters-brains/)
Quote from: Exterminator on August 10, 2016, 03:05:05 PM
This is my real brother...you know...same parents...grew up together...that sort of thing...not like one of your typical nebulous sources of information which are usually something along the lines of your 2nd cousin's barber's ex-wife's Facebook friend. :biggrin:
Lmao!
Quote from: Exterminator on August 10, 2016, 06:47:12 PM
Nice try, stupid: A neuroscientist explains what may be wrong with Trump supporters' brains (http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/a-neuroscientist-explains-what-may-be-wrong-with-trump-supporters-brains/)
People just see things differently which doesn't make them stupid it means they see things differently. We are not all meant to think alike or like the same things and never will. I will not like what, or who, you like just to keep from being put down and called names by some of you. You all have not made your case for me to see things as you do and it's as simple as that. I do not like her, I think she's a conniving, evil, lying, opportunist, and, to top it all off, a socialist and I don't agree with her ideas period. I will not be bullied into voting for her period.
Quote from: me on August 10, 2016, 11:30:35 PM
People just see things differently which doesn't make them stupid it means they see things differently.
If they support Trump, it absolutely does make them stupid.
Quote from: Exterminator on August 11, 2016, 06:51:43 AM
If they support Trump, it absolutely does make them stupid.
I don't particularly support him but I damn sure won't support Hillary.
Quote from: me on August 11, 2016, 11:33:06 AM
I don't particularly support him but I damn sure won't support Hillary.
Then don't vote!
Quote from: Exterminator on August 11, 2016, 11:45:31 AM
Then don't vote!
:clap: :clap: :yeah: :yeah: :dance: :dance: That's the answer! :thumbsup: DON'T VOTE!!!!!!!! :music1: :guitarist: :music1: :boohoo: :music1: :rock: :music1: and a drum roll :drummer:
Quote from: Exterminator on August 11, 2016, 11:45:31 AM
Then don't vote!
They are not the only two people running for president.
Quote from: Anne on August 11, 2016, 08:05:30 PM
They are not the only two people running for president.
I know and I'm really starting to check out the other ones. Sincerly hope they, or at least the most likely one, get invited to the debates. Even Gary Coleman looks good now. Remember the year he tried to run?
Quote from: me on August 11, 2016, 09:16:42 PM
I know and I'm really starting to check out the other ones. Sincerly hope they, or at least the most likely one, get invited to the debates. Even Gary Coleman looks good now. Remember the year he tried to run?
I don't remember that, but wasn't it Pat Paulson who was always running for president (comedy)?
Quote from: Anne on August 12, 2016, 04:04:47 PM
I don't remember that, but wasn't it Pat Paulson who was always running for president (comedy)?
Sure was and there was another comedian who played piano and I can't remember his name at all.
Quote from: me on August 13, 2016, 11:39:20 AM
Sure was and there was another comedian who played piano and I can't remember his name at all.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on August 13, 2016, 12:06:26 PM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
What's that all about? I take it you don't remember him.
Finally found the comedian I was referring to. I guess he was a satirist but I was thinking he also talked about running at the same time Pat Paulsen did. Maybe he did a sketch about it at some point or something.
https://www.youtube.com/v/WDEJOOQ48YI
Quote from: libby on August 06, 2016, 11:09:55 PM
I posted this in another thread yesterday, but, in retrospect think it deserves a thread of its own, so:
From yesterday's N.Y. Times:
I Ran the C.I.A. Now I'm Endorsing Hillary Clinton.
By MICHAEL J. MORELL, AUG. 5, 2016
During a 33-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, I served presidents of both parties — three Republicans and three Democrats. I was at President George W. Bush's side when we were attacked on Sept. 11; as deputy director of the agency, I was with President Obama when we killed Osama bin Laden in 2011.
I am neither a registered Democrat nor a registered Republican. In my 40 years of voting, I have pulled the lever for candidates of both parties. As a government official, I have always been silent about my preference for president.
No longer. On Nov. 8, I will vote for Hillary Clinton. Between now and then, I will do everything I can to ensure that she is elected as our 45th president.
Two strongly held beliefs have brought me to this decision. First, Mrs. Clinton is highly qualified to be commander in chief. I trust she will deliver on the most important duty of a president — keeping our nation safe. Second, Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security.
I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.
I also saw the secretary's commitment to our nation's security; her belief that America is an exceptional nation that must lead in the world for the country to remain secure and prosperous; her understanding that diplomacy can be effective only if the country is perceived as willing and able to use force if necessary; and, most important, her capacity to make the most difficult decision of all — whether to put young American women and men in harm's way.
Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important colleagues on the National Security Council. During the early debates about how we should respond to the Syrian civil war, she was a strong proponent of a more aggressive approach, one that might have prevented the Islamic State from gaining a foothold in Syria.
I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, "Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner."
In sharp contrast to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump has no experience on national security. Even more important, the character traits he has exhibited during the primary season suggest he would be a poor, even dangerous, commander in chief.
These traits include his obvious need for self-aggrandizement, his overreaction to perceived slights, his tendency to make decisions based on intuition, his refusal to change his views based on new information, his routine carelessness with the facts, his unwillingness to listen to others and his lack of respect for the rule of law.
The dangers that flow from Mr. Trump's character are not just risks that would emerge if he became president. It is already damaging our national security.
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was a career intelligence officer, trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities by complimenting him. He responded just as Mr. Putin had calculated.
Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia's annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States.
In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.
www.nytimes.com
Morell was on
Face the Nation this morning, with the same story and still in Hillary Clinton's corner. I didn't get to hear all of it, but he was, as before, impressive.
Quote from: Exterminator on August 09, 2016, 08:34:43 AM
Now that your talking points have been debunked, I will ask again: how is our country in trouble?
A week later...still nothing.
Bull shit.
Nope, you never answered because you've got nothin'!
Well, lets put it this way. I don't agree with Putin's politics he is most certainly a better leader than Obama any way you look at it.
Quote from: me on September 13, 2016, 03:08:56 PM
Well, lets put it this way. I don't agree with Putin's politics he is most certainly a better leader than Obama any way you look at it.
You're fuckin' crazy. :rolleyes:
The only thing Obama's good at is running off to the golf course.
Quote from: me on September 13, 2016, 05:48:34 PM
The only thing Obama's good at is running off to the golf course.
He kept this nation from going under for 8 years; despite a congress full of one word parrots, all saying no to anything his administration put forth. Even when it was their own policies. And all while trying to quell the war for oil the chimp started. . .
Quote from: me on September 13, 2016, 05:48:34 PM
The only thing Obama's good at is running off to the golf course.
You do realize that Obama's vacation day total is less than 200 days while George W. Bush was over 850? Guess he wasn't at that golf course as much as you think.
Don't go throwing around any facts. ;D
Quote from: AbbyTC on September 13, 2016, 08:25:52 PM
You do realize that Obama's vacation day total is less than 200 days while George W. Bush was over 850? Guess he wasn't at that golf course as much as you think.
Exactly. Every time, Obama goes on vacation, people bitch. Half of the vacations, I believe are going home to Hawaii.
Quote from: Locutus on September 13, 2016, 08:49:44 PM
Don't go throwing around any facts. ;D
Oops! Sorry about that! :biggrin:
Quote from: me on September 13, 2016, 05:48:34 PM
The only thing Obama's good at is running off to the golf course.
Speaking of President Obama: if y'all didn't catch his speech today -- an animated and emphatic defense of Hillary Clinton -- it is worth watching. :biggrin: :yes: If the WP carries it tomorrow, I'll post it here.
Quote from: AbbyTC on September 13, 2016, 08:25:52 PM
You do realize that Obama's vacation day total is less than 200 days while George W. Bush was over 850? Guess he wasn't at that golf course as much as you think.
Bull shit.
Quote from: me on September 14, 2016, 01:24:27 AM
Bull shit.
How many vacations do you take and go back to your home? You are showing how juvenile you are. Like Abby said his vacation no where is close to Bush's.
Fact check.org has how many vacations Bush took and how many Obama has. Granted it shows 2014 but shows that Bush had taken more than Obama had. Bush had taken 407 and Obama was over 120.
Quote from: Locutus on September 13, 2016, 08:49:44 PM
Don't go throwing around any facts. ;D
Yeah; god forbid you contradict one of her racist rants. :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on September 13, 2016, 05:48:34 PM
The only thing Obama's good at is running off to the golf course.
You're apparently unaware that the median household income in the U.S. went up 5.2% in 2015, the largest single-year increase since record keeping began in 1967. Quite the contrast to the doom and gloom that the Trumpies are peddling.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 14, 2016, 08:47:31 AM
You're apparently unaware that the median household income in the U.S. went up 5.2% in 2015, the largest single-year increase since record keeping began in 1967. Quite the contrast to the doom and gloom that the Trumpies are peddling.
Ya, if you use fuzzy math. How high hs the cost ol living went up in that same time period?
Quote from: me on September 14, 2016, 09:25:10 AM
Ya, if you use fuzzy math. How high hs the cost ol living went up in that same time period?
Still critical of that which you do not, never have, and never will understand I see. . .
Quote from: Exterminator on September 14, 2016, 08:47:31 AM
You're apparently unaware that the median household income in the U.S. went up 5.2% in 2015, the largest single-year increase since record keeping began in 1967. Quite the contrast to the doom and gloom that the Trumpies are peddling.
You fail to mention that the median household income was still 1.6 percent
lower than in 2007...and also this latest report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows real wages over the last month had
gone down again...indicating a stagnation of wages.
From the promises of the democrats and the Obama administration that they were for the hard working Americans and the poor, well the gap between rich and poor has gotten so much worse...this last boost didn't help the poor...BLS also states that the income inequality in the U.S. is still near an
all-time high and median household income and poverty levels are
worse than in 2007.
I also have read that the median household income is still below where it was in 1999 if you adjust for inflation.
We are still limping along with a very weak economy and IF it wasn't for the Fed pumping over $9 TRILLION into our stock market, you have to wonder WHERE we would be........it had NOTHING to do with Obama's policies that he is bragging about!
This is why, TRUMP will win this November.....people who WORK for a living KNOW that 4 more years of policies like we have had are NOT acceptable!
Why do you keep comparing things to 2007 instead of 2008?