Quotable Quotes

Rep. Dan Sullivan on Putin: ~ "A dictator, an authoritarian, a mafia regime leader."....

Trump in response: ~ "I have to make deals with people, so I don't go around calling them names... I don't go around mocking people. You know, part of the reason you have [the Iran war] in the first place is Biden went around mocking Russia and mocking everybody else and didn't know what he was doing."....

 
"I do not mind adding on a ballroom that much, but ..." R5 #2,325
There are numerous problems.
- Trump began construction before the "public", in this case a euphemism for $taxpayer, was made aware Trump's design doesn't even meet fire code.
- Trump told a variety of lies about it.
> Trump said the new construction would not interfere with the pre-existing white house
> the project would not cost the U.S. $taxpayer, the project would be fully funded by private donations
> it would not disrupt the DC skyline
"... destroying any building wing that old is really uncalled for." R5 #2,325
This raises question about whether this is about Trump self-aggrandizement, or the exercise of power, with absolute impunity.

Trump does not "own" the white house. It's U.S. government housing. Trump is a (hopefully temporary) tenant.
When I was a U.S. military member (President Trump is "commander in chief") the UCMJ prohibited destruction of government property.

Why don't we offer Trump the choice:
- either complete your FINAL presidential term in Leavenworth, OR
- entirely from Trump's own personal funding replace the now demolished East wing with an identical duplicate.

Enjoy your stay in Leavenworth Mr. President.
 
Why don't we offer Trump the choice:
- either complete your FINAL presidential term in Leavenworth, OR
- entirely from Trump's own personal funding replace the now demolished East wing with an identical duplicate.
The Supreme Court gave him an unlimited "get out of jail" card when they ruled that anything that he does in his official capacity is legal. (He actually tried to use that as a defense in the Stormy Daniels case - claimed that he'd mentioned it to some aide in the White House so that made it part of his official duties.)
 
The Supreme Court gave him an unlimited "get out of jail" card when they ruled that anything that he does in his official capacity is legal. (He actually tried to use that as a defense in the Stormy Daniels case - claimed that he'd mentioned it to some aide in the White House so that made it part of his official duties.)

While I agree crimes can not be part of his "official capacity", I did not see anything illegal about the Stormy Daniels hush money.
The most controversial part is that I think he then wrote it off as a business expense.
And actually I tend to think that was legal as well?
It is things like Venezuela, fast boats, Iran, ICE not using judicial due process, etc., that is criminal.
 
"The Supreme Court gave him an unlimited "get out of jail" card when they ruled that anything that he does in his official capacity is legal. (He actually tried to use that as a defense in the Stormy Daniels case - claimed that he'd mentioned it to some aide in the White House so that made it part of his official duties.)" S2 #2,327
"While I agree crimes can not be part of his "official capacity"" R5 #2,329
At the hands of the U.S. voters (and the electoral college) the U.S. careens out of control.

Trump has debilitated the U.S. military by shocking reductions among senior U.S. military leadership. For what benefit?
Trump has the authority to so as commander in chief: United States Constitution Art.2 Sect.2.1

What Constitutional enumeration grants the president the authority to demolish an irreplaceable national landmark like the white house East wing?

There's more to "anything that he does in his official capacity" than any crime the president perpetrates during his own tenure.
It is a cliché that no one is above the law.

President Trump has much to answer for.

261019PBSNH02sp.JPG

sickening
 
Trump has debilitated the U.S. military by shocking reductions among senior U.S. military leadership. For what benefit?
Those members of the military that he fired weren't doing their job (said job being prostrating themselves in front of Trump and doing exactly what he wants). [end sarcasm]
 
I like reductions in the US military, and would like to see it return mostly to a volunteer militia.
The only thing we need permanent military for is high tech stuff that requires special training, or the training requirements themselves.
We should not have any offshore military bases in my opinion.
 
"I like reductions in the US military" R5 #2,332
Some persons are overweight. Losing 10 pounds might seem a benefit. BUT !
Decapitation is not usually the preferred protocol.

Whether the U.S. military should undergo headcount reduction is a matter that should be considered with the following understanding:
There's no more extravagant waste than a 2nd rate military. Gen. Horner
For the U.S. to maintain its sovereignty, it needs a U.S. military powerful enough to maintain its U.S. sovereignty.
A military less capable than that is a potentially terminal risk.

But the U.S. military population is not homogeneous.
There are enlisted, non-commissioned, and commissioned officers.

The cuts Secretary Hegseth has made do not appear to have taken specialty / skill into consideration.
 
Some persons are overweight. Losing 10 pounds might seem a benefit. BUT !
Decapitation is not usually the preferred protocol.

Whether the U.S. military should undergo headcount reduction is a matter that should be considered with the following understanding:

For the U.S. to maintain its sovereignty, it needs a U.S. military powerful enough to maintain its U.S. sovereignty.
A military less capable than that is a potentially terminal risk.

But the U.S. military population is not homogeneous.
There are enlisted, non-commissioned, and commissioned officers.

The cuts Secretary Hegseth has made do not appear to have taken specialty / skill into consideration.

Since no one else has a significant navy and no amphibious landing craft, I do not think anyone could ever invade the US.
And even if they did, I think the number of privately armed individuals is more than enough to wipe out any invasion force that were foolish enough to ever try.
Nor does it make sense to worry about invasion when it is corrupt US companies who pose a much bigger threat to individual freedom.
 
"Since no one else has a significant navy and no amphibious landing craft, I do not think anyone could ever invade the US.
And even if they did, I think the number of privately armed individuals is more than enough to wipe out any invasion force that were foolish enough to ever try.
Nor does it make sense to worry about invasion when it is corrupt US companies who pose a much bigger threat to individual freedom." R5 #2,335

It is a centuries old cliché: Inept commanders prepare to re-fight the last war, rather than equip to win the next war.
Your "amphibious landing craft" & "privately armed individuals" imagery addresses an infantry style invasion, literal boots on the ground.
Possible.
EXTREMELY unlikely, as you suggest.

The U.S. is ALREADY at cyber-war, Stuxnet being a mere primer.

In 2014, Sony Pictures suffered a devastating and highly publicized cyberattack related to its planned release of the controversial film The Interview, which intelligence reports later attributed to a nation-state attacker.

France's supermarket refrigerators were recently hacked.
Oct 12, 2026 ... Hundreds of French supermarkets have been hit by a cyber attack that caused their fridges and freezers to heat up, spoiling fresh and frozen ...

French fridges not the end of the American world, BUT !
this well publicized attack in France demonstrates U.S. vulnerabilities.

In conclusion:
We agree the type of threat you describe, which we are well defended against, is exceedingly unlikely.
In contrast the type of threat more likely to extinguish U.S. may be over, the U.S. may have lost, before most Americans became aware it had begun.
Whether that's a total nuclear volley launched at 3:AM so the mushrooms have sprouted before dawn,
or an alternate scenario such as a bio-engineered pathogen the enemy attacker has vaccinated its population against, causing a plague from which the U.S. never recovers ...

"I like reductions in the US military" R5 #2,332
Superb.
But the Hegseth / Musk / DOGE / Trump meat-axe approach is not surgery, it's butchery.

None of these clowns understands as much about U.S. national defense as the senior U.S. military commanders they've fired.
 
It is a centuries old cliché: Inept commanders prepare to re-fight the last war, rather than equip to win the next war.
Your "amphibious landing craft" & "privately armed individuals" imagery addresses an infantry style invasion, literal boots on the ground.
Possible.
EXTREMELY unlikely, as you suggest.

The U.S. is ALREADY at cyber-war, Stuxnet being a mere primer.

In 2014, Sony Pictures suffered a devastating and highly publicized cyberattack related to its planned release of the controversial film The Interview, which intelligence reports later attributed to a nation-state attacker.

France's supermarket refrigerators were recently hacked.
Oct 12, 2026 ... Hundreds of French supermarkets have been hit by a cyber attack that caused their fridges and freezers to heat up, spoiling fresh and frozen ...

French fridges not the end of the American world, BUT !
this well publicized attack in France demonstrates U.S. vulnerabilities.

In conclusion:
We agree the type of threat you describe, which we are well defended against, is exceedingly unlikely.
In contrast the type of threat more likely to extinguish U.S. may be over, the U.S. may have lost, before most Americans became aware it had begun.
Whether that's a total nuclear volley launched at 3:AM so the mushrooms have sprouted before dawn,
or an alternate scenario such as a bio-engineered pathogen the enemy attacker has vaccinated its population against, causing a plague from which the U.S. never recovers ...


Superb.
But the Hegseth / Musk / DOGE / Trump meat-axe approach is not surgery, it's butchery.

None of these clowns understands as much about U.S. national defense as the senior U.S. military commanders they've fired.

Things have changed.
When there were just abusive monarchs, then you just waged war on their armed forces.
Now that the industries have taken over, all that matters now is getting revenue from the population.
So now you don't necessarily have to defeat armed forces any more, and can achieve the profits you want just be making your own people fearful of invasion, and selling them on weapons.

But I do not understand why the armed forced participated in the sinking of fast boats, the kidnapping of Maduro, the assassination of the Ayatollah, etc., since those seem like crimes to me.
So maybe the reason for the purge is to get out those with a sense of law/order/justice?
 
"I'm a high-IQ person...among the highest IQs anywhere in the world." ~ Trump

Different programs were use to estimate Trump's IQ, and they all came out low.
{...
"Vocabulary is extremely simple and repetitive. Same superlatives over and over. Sentences are short and circular. He constantly dodges direct questions, loses the thread, contradicts himself, and fills gaps with bragging instead of actual explanation."

Its estimated IQ score was "low average, roughly around 85 to 95", noting that he appears "confident" and "street-smart", but not "intellectually sharp".
...}
 
Back
Top