POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
I like knowing when and how we bomb people. Obama was the only president to be in war every day of his 8 year term and I don't feel like I ever saw reports on what we were bombing or targets we were taking out.
Didn't take Trump long to learn how to actually fight the enemy.
That's not what's happening. Obama had turned our military into a politically correct safe space. Under Obama, a commander had to jump through hoops, call Washington, run their decision(s) by a dozen lawyers, and get approval from the UN just to do their jobs.
Not anymore. Trump has delegated authority back to the commanders on the ground. He has given them back the power they were meant to have, the power to actually win a war, and not just babysit, pretending to be fighting a war.
If we don't stop this sort of bullshit then America doesn't deserve to survive any longer.
what better place to test out these type of non nuke super bombs than that shithole of a country. i'm also willing to bet that this bomb is another warning to N Korea what is in store for them real soon.
You believe it why?
Because our "intelligence" says so? The same "intelligence" that's been wrong or simply lied how many times now?
The neoconservatives and the Jews/Israel have a hard-on for Syria (land and pipeline) and have had it for a long time. Now we find out Ivanka (((Kushner))) boo-hooing convinced Trump to strike...
Much better chance the chemical attack was ISIS or a false flag than Assad. He has no MOTIVE.
I'm fairly certain that this was a primary reason for it's use today.
New study finds tax cuts would create nearly 2 million jobs, create surge in incomes.
The State-by-State Impact on Jobs and Family Incomes of the House GOP Blueprint
Using the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth (TAG) macroeconomic tax model, our analysis found that the “plan would significantly reduce the cost of capital and reduce the marginal tax rate on labor. These changes in the incentives to work and invest would greatly increase the U.S. economy’s size in the long run, boost wages, and result in more full-time equivalent jobs.”
Indeed, the TAG model estimates that the plan would result in the creation of roughly 1.7 million new full-time equivalent jobs, while increasing the after-tax incomes of median households by 8.7 percent. The increase in family incomes is the result of both the income tax cuts and the broader rise in productivity and wages due to economic growth. These estimates take into account all aspects of the Blueprint, including the impact of the border adjustment.
Details and Analysis of the 2016 House Republican Tax Reform Plan
Key Findings
The State-by-State Impact on Jobs and Family Incomes of the House GOP Blueprint
Using the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth (TAG) macroeconomic tax model, our analysis found that the “plan would significantly reduce the cost of capital and reduce the marginal tax rate on labor. These changes in the incentives to work and invest would greatly increase the U.S. economy’s size in the long run, boost wages, and result in more full-time equivalent jobs.”
Indeed, the TAG model estimates that the plan would result in the creation of roughly 1.7 million new full-time equivalent jobs, while increasing the after-tax incomes of median households by 8.7 percent. The increase in family incomes is the result of both the income tax cuts and the broader rise in productivity and wages due to economic growth. These estimates take into account all aspects of the Blueprint, including the impact of the border adjustment.
Details and Analysis of the 2016 House Republican Tax Reform Plan
Key Findings
- The House Republican tax reform plan would reform the individual income tax and would move towards destination-based cash flow taxation of businesses.
- According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would significantly reduce marginal tax rates and the cost of capital, which would lead to 9.1 percent higher GDP over the long term, 7.7 percent higher wages, and an additional 1.7 million full-time equivalent jobs.
- The plan would reduce federal revenue by $2.4 trillion over the first decade on a static basis. However, due to the larger economy and the broader tax base, the plan would reduce revenue by $191 billion over the first decade.
- Although the plan would reduce federal revenue by $2.4 trillion on a static basis in the first decade, much of the revenue loss is one-time. As a result, the plan will cost much less in subsequent decades.
- On a static basis, the plan would lead to 0.7 percent higher after-tax income for all taxpayers and 5.3 percent higher after-tax income for the top 1 percent. When accounting for the increased GDP, after-tax incomes of all taxpayers would increase by at least 8.4 percent
Tax cuts for the rich are the thing I care about the least. Doing away with loopholes would be a great start. I'm all in favor of tax cuts for the middle classes however, 
.
.
Read this latest from Coulter and sober up... Trump can support his libtard Daughter and Son-in-Law and continue getting patted on the head by the neocons and establishment or he can do what he ran on. NO FOREIGN WARS, IMMIGRATION TOP PRIORITY, Build the wall, tax reform, and swamp draining.
Http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/04/12/ann-coulter-lassie-come-home/
It's hard to overstate just how big a blunder it was to stick our nose in Syria, especially when he spent a year campaigning for the exact opposite foreign policy.
How is Trump supposed to MAGA when the world is in friggin turmoil? As long as he doesn't commit troops to Syria and it was merely him establishing that he's the CIC now I'm OK with what he did. And NK has to be dealt with sometime and soon, do you think it was an accident that we bombed Syria while Trump was visiting with Xi?
Agree, but that's not what is happening. It was a message, nothing more. Mattis made it very clear that the Syria policy hasn't changed, and that the US is in no way, no how going to "stick its nose in Syria".
what was done in Syria and what we dropped today on the other shit hole was all about optics more than initial results. there are bigger fish to fry than Assad and these were about sending a different message that there is a new sheriff in charge. imo
I've got friends in the Marines who say otherwise. Boots on the ground in 60 days.
we have had boots on the ground ever since we invaded Iraq. for anyone to think otherwise is foolish. now what branch or OP group those boots belong to is a different story. but our presence has always been there.
cite your work
Slow down, now. Come holler at me in 60 days. I refuse to sit here and debate rumor and fallacy.
Correct. Those boots have permission from the Syrian government, are limited, and only there to offer support in the fight against ISIS.
I'm assuming @JohnKBA was meaning boots on the ground as in without permission, in full force, and against the Syrian government.
Then I don't guess you're giving him much hope. Answer honestly...when did Trump ever chose anyone/anything over family? (Other than his throw away wives)? He's got to live and work with the family.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
Obes had boots on the ground in Iraq at all times while telling everyone there were no boots on the ground.
Btw, I'm sure you marine "friends" are going to share explosive mission details in violation of their orders with you, a noted Canadian.
So your claim is that the Syrian government (Assad) has granted the US "permission" to support just WHO in the fight against ISIS? There are about 60 different militias on 4 loosely defined sides in Syria. All 4 sides are fighting against and with the other 4 sides. The US is supporting the Rojava which is fighting against the Syrian government troops headed by Assad. The Rojava is not the Syrian government, they are basically the Syrian Kurds.
Good Lord... said there were none there?
Obes had boots on the ground in Iraq at all times while telling everyone there were no boots on the ground.
Btw, I'm sure you marine "friends" are going to share explosive mission details in violation of their orders with you, a noted Canadian.
From March, 2016
The Defense Department has also reversed an earlier position and are now declining to confirm how many forces are presently in Iraq, saying only that the number of officially assigned forces is below the current cap of 3,870.
“People come through on a temporary basis and go above and below the force cap all the time, but we remain under our force cap,” Col. Steve Warren, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, told reporters on Monday.
May have had more than they ever wanted to admit but at no point did they ever tell anyone that there were none on the ground.
Do yourself a favor and do a little research. You can find PUBLIC comments made by Obama and other administration officials about troops in Iraq made in just about every month of his presidency.
Looks like the Fox News report was right.
Oh, and how convenient that British intelligence, just like the Obama administration US intelligence, just so happened to "incidentally" come across and collect the communications of Trump and his associates.
Report from last month:
GCHQ's surveillance became politically sensitive when Trump -- citing an uncorroborated Fox News report -- claimed that Britain had tapped his phones in Trump Tower at former President Barack Obama's behest.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer repeated Trump's claim and cited Fox News' reporting about GCHQ's surveillance to reporters in the briefing room. "Judge Andrew Napolitano made the following statement, quote, 'Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command (to spy on Trump).
He didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA ... he used GCHQ,'" Spicer told journalists.
Those comments angered British officials. After Spicer's remarks, White House officials told CNN British ambassador to the US Kim Darroch and Sir Mark Lyall Grant, national security adviser to Prime Minister Theresa May, "expressed their concerns to Spicer and Trump national security adviser H.R. McMaster" in two separate conversations.
The GCHQ also issued a statement saying: "Recent allegations made by media commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano about GCHQ being asked to conduct 'wire tapping' against the then President-elect are nonsense. They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored."
Today's breaking news report:
British intelligence passed Trump associates' communications with Russians on to US counterparts.
British and other European intelligence agencies intercepted communications between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials and other Russian individuals during the campaign and passed on those communications to their US counterparts, US congressional and law enforcement and US and European intelligence sources tell CNN.
British and European intelligence agencies, including GCHQ, the British intelligence agency responsible for communications surveillance, were not proactively targeting members of the Trump team but rather picked up these communications during what's known as "incidental collection," these sources tell CNN.
Oh, and how convenient that British intelligence, just like the Obama administration US intelligence, just so happened to "incidentally" come across and collect the communications of Trump and his associates.
Report from last month:
GCHQ's surveillance became politically sensitive when Trump -- citing an uncorroborated Fox News report -- claimed that Britain had tapped his phones in Trump Tower at former President Barack Obama's behest.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer repeated Trump's claim and cited Fox News' reporting about GCHQ's surveillance to reporters in the briefing room. "Judge Andrew Napolitano made the following statement, quote, 'Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command (to spy on Trump).
He didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA ... he used GCHQ,'" Spicer told journalists.
Those comments angered British officials. After Spicer's remarks, White House officials told CNN British ambassador to the US Kim Darroch and Sir Mark Lyall Grant, national security adviser to Prime Minister Theresa May, "expressed their concerns to Spicer and Trump national security adviser H.R. McMaster" in two separate conversations.
The GCHQ also issued a statement saying: "Recent allegations made by media commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano about GCHQ being asked to conduct 'wire tapping' against the then President-elect are nonsense. They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored."
Today's breaking news report:
British intelligence passed Trump associates' communications with Russians on to US counterparts.
British and other European intelligence agencies intercepted communications between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials and other Russian individuals during the campaign and passed on those communications to their US counterparts, US congressional and law enforcement and US and European intelligence sources tell CNN.
British and European intelligence agencies, including GCHQ, the British intelligence agency responsible for communications surveillance, were not proactively targeting members of the Trump team but rather picked up these communications during what's known as "incidental collection," these sources tell CNN.
The surge won the war. "...The Americans who have served in Iraq completed every mission they were given. They defeated a regime that had terrorized its people. Together with Iraqis and coalition partners who made huge sacrifices of their own, our troops fought block by block to help Iraq seize the chance for a better future. They shifted tactics to protect the Iraqi people, trained Iraqi Security Forces, and took out terrorist leaders. Because of our troops and civilians -- and because of the resilience of the Iraqi people -- Iraq has the opportunity to embrace a new destiny, even though many challenges remain.
So tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country..."
Barack Obama
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release August 31, 2010
So tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country..."
Barack Obama
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release August 31, 2010
There are actual liberals complaining about Trump bombing ISIS. Can't make this stuff up.
Trump's administration has not chosen a side in the civil war, regardless of what CNN tells you. Trump's administration is not at war with the Syrian government/military, regardless of what CNN tells you. Trump's administration also has zero desire for a regime change, regardless of what CNN tells you.
Trump is smart enough, and has learned enough from Obama's failures to know what comes next if that were to happen. The Trump administration's only interest in Syria, as it should be, is destroying ISIS. Trump should stay out of the rest of it, and leave that mess for Russia.
Part of Syria is under the control of the Syrian government, which enjoys support from the country’s Druze, Christian and Alawite (Shia) minorities.
Part of Syria is under the control of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, popularly known as ISIS. The Islamic State, led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is currently the most radical and successful jihadi group in the world.
Other parts of Syria are under the control of various militia groups fighting both the Assad regime and each other. Some of these militias nominally work with a would-be government in exile called the Free Syrian Army, whose leadership is weak, disorganised, and corrupt. The militias draw heavily from pre-war Syria’s Sunni majority, who were excluded and discriminated against before the Civil War began. Several Sunni militias are led by radical jihadis.
Finally, a small part of north-eastern Syria is under the control of a Kurdish provisional government known as Rojava. Kurds are the only non-Arab element in Syria’s population. The Kurdish government does not seek to govern the whole of Syria. Kurdish territorial ambitions extend only to a Kurdish region, though arguably they imagine that region too broadly.
The small number of American military advisors already fighting ISIS in Syria are based in the Kurdish region. The complexities of Kurdish politics, however, are a sideshow for Syria as a whole: the Rojava government does not seek to govern Damascus, nor indeed to govern Aleppo, Homs, Hama, Latakia, Deir Ezzor, or Raqqa, Syria’s next-largest cities. So, who should wield power in Damascus?
None of the remaining parties makes an attractive ally for the United States, or for NATO, or for any incarnation of “the West.” Assad and ISIS both engage in mass killing against their political opponents. The various militias of the Free Syrian Army have, perhaps, been less violent, but only because they are less capable and less competent. Were the Assad regime to collapse suddenly, the massacre and ethnic cleansing of Alawis, Druze and Christians would probably ensue.
Perhaps, therefore, it is time to prefer an end with horrors, to horrors without end. The continuing absence of Nelson Mandela’s ghost leaves only bad options on the table. Supporting the Kurds is not enough, one must pick a side inside Syria proper. The Free Syrian Army appears incapable of victory; supporting it would merely prolong the anarchy and violence. That leaves only two realistic options left on the table: the Assad regime and the Islamic State. If foreign powers wish to intervene in Syria, therefore, they should support the Assad regime.
Both the Islamic State and the Assad regime, the contenders for power in Syria, are violent and brutal. However, the Syrian government at least pays lip service to representative government.
Trump is smart enough, and has learned enough from Obama's failures to know what comes next if that were to happen. The Trump administration's only interest in Syria, as it should be, is destroying ISIS. Trump should stay out of the rest of it, and leave that mess for Russia.
Part of Syria is under the control of the Syrian government, which enjoys support from the country’s Druze, Christian and Alawite (Shia) minorities.
Part of Syria is under the control of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, popularly known as ISIS. The Islamic State, led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is currently the most radical and successful jihadi group in the world.
Other parts of Syria are under the control of various militia groups fighting both the Assad regime and each other. Some of these militias nominally work with a would-be government in exile called the Free Syrian Army, whose leadership is weak, disorganised, and corrupt. The militias draw heavily from pre-war Syria’s Sunni majority, who were excluded and discriminated against before the Civil War began. Several Sunni militias are led by radical jihadis.
Finally, a small part of north-eastern Syria is under the control of a Kurdish provisional government known as Rojava. Kurds are the only non-Arab element in Syria’s population. The Kurdish government does not seek to govern the whole of Syria. Kurdish territorial ambitions extend only to a Kurdish region, though arguably they imagine that region too broadly.
The small number of American military advisors already fighting ISIS in Syria are based in the Kurdish region. The complexities of Kurdish politics, however, are a sideshow for Syria as a whole: the Rojava government does not seek to govern Damascus, nor indeed to govern Aleppo, Homs, Hama, Latakia, Deir Ezzor, or Raqqa, Syria’s next-largest cities. So, who should wield power in Damascus?
None of the remaining parties makes an attractive ally for the United States, or for NATO, or for any incarnation of “the West.” Assad and ISIS both engage in mass killing against their political opponents. The various militias of the Free Syrian Army have, perhaps, been less violent, but only because they are less capable and less competent. Were the Assad regime to collapse suddenly, the massacre and ethnic cleansing of Alawis, Druze and Christians would probably ensue.
Perhaps, therefore, it is time to prefer an end with horrors, to horrors without end. The continuing absence of Nelson Mandela’s ghost leaves only bad options on the table. Supporting the Kurds is not enough, one must pick a side inside Syria proper. The Free Syrian Army appears incapable of victory; supporting it would merely prolong the anarchy and violence. That leaves only two realistic options left on the table: the Assad regime and the Islamic State. If foreign powers wish to intervene in Syria, therefore, they should support the Assad regime.
Both the Islamic State and the Assad regime, the contenders for power in Syria, are violent and brutal. However, the Syrian government at least pays lip service to representative government.
Like some Canadian knows about "boots on the ground"
Or has friends.
Or has friends.
How awesome would it be if Trump had Kim Jung asswipe assassinated to end the week? Or just bomb the f*** out of his nuclear sites?
Trump lied when he said we would get tired of winning.
Trump lied when he said we would get tired of winning.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Class comes from the coach or at least should start with him ?
- Latest: Trubluepopeye
