|
Post by mikey on Nov 15, 2017 21:19:09 GMT -5
There's no mention of "issis" in that article. Is there some other citation that would show such a connection? Also from the article: Sure, ceasefires sound better than supplying arms. But again, I don't see "issis" in this article. And this is the US and Russia talking about ceasefires. Russia - supposedly our good buddies now, right? And we're supporting opposite sides in the Middle East? I'm definitely understanding why he trusts Putin before his own intelligence agencies. The fact is, is President Trump put a stop to the CIA funding. Isis is defeated now. The end
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 15, 2017 21:29:16 GMT -5
Ah, assertion without evidence + The End = fact.
If only it were typed in ALL CAPS, then it would be ironclad proof.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Nov 15, 2017 21:55:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 15, 2017 22:22:54 GMT -5
Claim? I made no claim. You made a claim, with no citation. Which you’ve now provided. The defeat in that arena is great news. Still, this article draws no link to ceasing of CIA funding. So it doesn’t prove this is a Trump win. ISIS are then down in Syria and Iran, but is that really the end of ISIS? One would hope they’reon the way out. If that threat is gone, then we can drop the travel ban idea. Right?
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Nov 15, 2017 22:37:17 GMT -5
The fact that President Trumps action regarding the stopped CIA funding to an ongoing war in Syria is a Trump win for those of us who are anti- warmongering.
Obviously your millage is your own.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 15, 2017 22:46:52 GMT -5
The fact that President Trumps action regarding the stopped CIA funding to an ongoing war in Syria is a Trump win for those of us who are anti- warmongering. Obviously your millage is your own. You still haven’t shown any evidence to make that connection, so please cite the fact you claim. And given Trump’s saber-rattling with North Korea, I don’t think “anti-warmongering” is a legit way to describe him. I’m also anti-war, so don’t paint me as a hawk. I’m glad we have that common ground. I’m not arguing ideology. I just want to see the evidence for what you claim as facts.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Nov 15, 2017 23:07:26 GMT -5
The fact that President Trumps action regarding the stopped CIA funding to an ongoing war in Syria is a Trump win for those of us who are anti- warmongering. Obviously your millage is your own. You still haven’t shown any evidence to make that connection, so please cite the fact you claim. And given Trump’s saber-rattling with North Korea, I don’t think “anti-warmongering” is a legit way to describe him. I’m also anti-war, so don’t paint me as a hawk. I’m glad we have that common ground. I’m not arguing ideology. I just want to see the evidence for what you claim as facts. My very first post in this thread was the cite worth noting, did you read the link? Do you not believe the NY Times? Lets not get into the whole whatabout Hillery back and forth, it's not relevant. The only person I claimed who was anti-warmongering was myself. No one else.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Nov 15, 2017 23:14:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 15, 2017 23:17:25 GMT -5
My very first post in this thread was the cite worth noting, did you read the link? Do you not believe the NY Times? I read it. I quoted from it in the very next post. Did you not read my post? The article doesn't mention ISIS anywhere. So you have one article about Trump defunding the CIA supporting Syrian rebels, and another about ISIS being routed. But no connection between the two. If there is one, great, but it's not shown here. Lets not get into the whole whatabout Hillery back and forth, it's not relevant. The only person I claimed who was anti-warmongering was myself. No one else. I agree. As I said, I'm not arguing ideology, just the citations for assertions. I didn't start any "what about Hillary" argy-bargy (how Hillary is related, I don't know). Let's keep it that way. It would be a refreshing change.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Nov 15, 2017 23:44:31 GMT -5
My very first post in this thread was the cite worth noting, did you read the link? Do you not believe the NY Times? I read it. I quoted from it in the very next post. Did you not read my post? Yes I did, But I was not getting what you were wanting from me as far as a clarification, until now. If I understand correctly, the problem is my use of the word "issis" as opposed to the word "rebels"?Well, they have both fallen off the Syrian map, so maybe they were separate but they shared the same fate. Just to clarify my Hillery remark. that was in response to "And given Trump’s saber-rattling with North Korea". I meant to only point to Trumps defunding the CIAs action in Syria. That was all. And my support of that particular Trump action.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 16, 2017 0:25:32 GMT -5
<insert thumbs-up smiley, or shaking hands, or something, here>
Thanks for explaining. All good here!
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 16, 2017 16:41:16 GMT -5
Glad they're safe, after doing such an arrogant, stupid thing, and glad there was a result - good on him for working it out. I rather hope that isn't the one of the Top Ten accomplishments of his first year as President of the United States, or that this means he now owes China a solid. It doesn't seem like a great use of a President's time. And it seemed petty that he prodded them into a public thank-you (which they may well have done anyway).
|
|
|
Post by haggis on Nov 16, 2017 16:56:34 GMT -5
Glad they're safe, after doing such an arrogant, stupid thing, and glad there was a result - good on him for working it out. I rather hope that isn't the one of the Top Ten accomplishments of his first year as President of the United States, or that this means he now owes China a solid. It doesn't seem like a great use of a President's time. And it seemed petty that he prodded them into a public thank-you (which they may well have done anyway). Trump? Petty? I'm shocked. Shocked, I say. Okay. I'm over it.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Nov 16, 2017 18:12:03 GMT -5
Glad they're safe, after doing such an arrogant, stupid thing, and glad there was a result - good on him for working it out. I rather hope that isn't the one of the Top Ten accomplishments of his first year as President of the United States, or that this means he now owes China a solid. It doesn't seem like a great use of a President's time. And it seemed petty that he prodded them into a public thank-you (which they may well have done anyway). It's sad that Trump has earned so few feathers in his first year, his hat looks almost naked. almost..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 18:26:58 GMT -5
Now if we're talking hats, Carter Page is the guy we should be talking about. (I'm actually a hat person. I like hats. I wear a lot of hats. But that is one seriously silly-looking hat. ESPECIALLY with a suit. ESPECIALLY if you are heading into a Congressional hearing. You really need a damn lawyer if you're going to wear a hat like that. I'm just saying.) (Unfortunately, I'm not sure I'll ever again so much as hear the word "hat" without thinking of Carter Page.) (I mean, if he were, say, going fishing while wearing that hat, I would still think it was not a great fashion choice, but it would at least be more appropriate for the occasion. You need a pole and some hooks with a hat like that. I'm just saying.) (It's just that I've been kind of mesmerized with that hat and Carter Page generally and looking for some excuse to share that picture. It wasn't worth its own thread. I mean, maybe there was a better thread than this one, but when the word hat came up... Anyway. Sorry. Carry on.) (Was this a derail? Yeah. This was totally a derail. My bad.)
|
|