Trump Dictatorship and All Things Politics
- Thread starter LogGrad98
- Start date
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
A gay hair dresser? That’s who Donald is protecting us from? LOL
MAGAs are so stupid
View: https://bsky.app/profile/timmiller.bsky.social/post/3ll7khyjq4c2w
MAGAs are so stupid
View: https://bsky.app/profile/timmiller.bsky.social/post/3ll7khyjq4c2w
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Yeah…
I’m guessing a lot of it branches from grievance. She never felt she got the respect and money she deserved. She found a home on the right. And I have no doubt that Russia found a way to get her paid. She’s an unbelievable asset for Putin.
Sardines
Well-Known Member
I think it goes further back than that. I wonder if she was turned while she was in the military.
That poll confirms what many already think, 52 percent of Americans are ****ing stupid.
Imagine being called a sleaze bag by Donald Trump, what would that person actually look like? Imagine if they still gave real journalist access to the white house that asked real questions like when was the president informed, why did he lie to the press about being informed and so on. Instead we get these far right scum throwing trump pies to help the ****ing useless ************ get back on message as he ****s around to his next scandal and **** up. There will be 3 more by the end of the week.
Imagine trying to turn that bitch out, pimp would starve to death.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Red
Well-Known Member
And here we go. No paywall…if they truly don’t consider this info “classified”, then maybe they should all be replaced with people who do…..
www.theatlantic.com
The statements by Hegseth, Gabbard, Ratcliffe, and Trump—combined with the assertions made by numerous administration officials that we are lying about the content of the Signal texts—have led us to believe that people should see the texts in order to reach their own conclusions. There is a clear public interest in disclosing the sort of information that Trump advisers included in nonsecure communications channels, especially because senior administration figures are attempting to downplay the significance of the messages that were shared.
Experts have repeatedly told us that use of a Signal chat for such sensitive discussions poses a threat to national security. As a case in point, Goldberg received information on the attacks two hours before the scheduled start of the bombing of Houthi positions. If this information—particularly the exact times American aircraft were taking off for Yemen—had fallen into the wrong hands in that crucial two-hour period, American pilots and other American personnel could have been exposed to even greater danger than they ordinarily would face. The Trump administration is arguing that the military information contained in these texts was not classified—as it typically would be—although the president has not explained how he reached this conclusion.
Yesterday, we asked officials across the Trump administration if they objected to us publishing the full texts. In emails to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Council, the Department of Defense, and the White House, we wrote, in part: “In light of statements today from multiple administration officials, including before the Senate Intelligence Committee, that the information in the Signal chain about the Houthi strike is not classified, and that it does not contain ‘war plans,’ The Atlantic is considering publishing the entirety of the Signal chain.”
We sent our first request for comment and feedback to national-security officials shortly after noon, and followed up in the evening after most failed to answer.
Late yesterday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt emailed a response: “As we have repeatedly stated, there was no classified information transmitted in the group chat. However, as the CIA Director and National Security Advisor have both expressed today, that does not mean we encourage the release of the conversation. This was intended to be a an [sic] internal and private deliberation amongst high-level senior staff and sensitive information was discussed. So for those reason [sic] — yes, we object to the release.” (The Leavitt statement did not address which elements of the texts the White House considered sensitive, or how, more than a week after the initial air strikes, their publication could have bearing on national security.)
Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal
The administration has downplayed the importance of the text messages inadvertently sent to The Atlantic’s editor in chief.
www.theatlantic.com
The statements by Hegseth, Gabbard, Ratcliffe, and Trump—combined with the assertions made by numerous administration officials that we are lying about the content of the Signal texts—have led us to believe that people should see the texts in order to reach their own conclusions. There is a clear public interest in disclosing the sort of information that Trump advisers included in nonsecure communications channels, especially because senior administration figures are attempting to downplay the significance of the messages that were shared.
Experts have repeatedly told us that use of a Signal chat for such sensitive discussions poses a threat to national security. As a case in point, Goldberg received information on the attacks two hours before the scheduled start of the bombing of Houthi positions. If this information—particularly the exact times American aircraft were taking off for Yemen—had fallen into the wrong hands in that crucial two-hour period, American pilots and other American personnel could have been exposed to even greater danger than they ordinarily would face. The Trump administration is arguing that the military information contained in these texts was not classified—as it typically would be—although the president has not explained how he reached this conclusion.
Yesterday, we asked officials across the Trump administration if they objected to us publishing the full texts. In emails to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Council, the Department of Defense, and the White House, we wrote, in part: “In light of statements today from multiple administration officials, including before the Senate Intelligence Committee, that the information in the Signal chain about the Houthi strike is not classified, and that it does not contain ‘war plans,’ The Atlantic is considering publishing the entirety of the Signal chain.”
We sent our first request for comment and feedback to national-security officials shortly after noon, and followed up in the evening after most failed to answer.
Late yesterday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt emailed a response: “As we have repeatedly stated, there was no classified information transmitted in the group chat. However, as the CIA Director and National Security Advisor have both expressed today, that does not mean we encourage the release of the conversation. This was intended to be a an [sic] internal and private deliberation amongst high-level senior staff and sensitive information was discussed. So for those reason [sic] — yes, we object to the release.” (The Leavitt statement did not address which elements of the texts the White House considered sensitive, or how, more than a week after the initial air strikes, their publication could have bearing on national security.)
Last edited:
Red
Well-Known Member
House Republican on war plans chat: ‘There’s no doubt that Russia and China saw this stuff’
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said there’s “no doubt” that Russia and China were monitoring the U.S. officials’ devices used for a war plan text chat. “I will guarantee you, 99.99 percent with conf…
thehill.com
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said there’s “no doubt” that Russia and China were monitoring the U.S. officials’ devices used for a war plan text chat.
“I will guarantee you, 99.99 percent with confidence, Russia and China are monitoring those two phones,” Bacon told CNN’s Manu Raju. “So I just think it’s a security violation, and there’s no doubt that Russia and China saw this stuff within hours of the actual attacks on Yemen or the Houthis.”
Yeah, Hegseth need to be in prison at a minimum.
The broader planning talk - I don't think it should be taking place on this app, but it's in reprimand and change/reinforce policy territory.
The fairly detailed announcement of operation info (when/what), is incompetence well past a tolerable level for the SecDef (or active treason, take your pick).
The broader planning talk - I don't think it should be taking place on this app, but it's in reprimand and change/reinforce policy territory.
The fairly detailed announcement of operation info (when/what), is incompetence well past a tolerable level for the SecDef (or active treason, take your pick).
Red
Well-Known Member
Trump is inspiring authoritarians elsewhere….
www.semafor.com
Analysts argue that US President Donald Trump’s upending of political norms has emboldened autocratic leaders around the world to pursue crackdowns on human rights and democracy.
Some leaders have explicitly invoked Trump’s return to power as justification for their moves: After Hungary’s parliament voted this month to ban an annual LBGTQ+ Pride parade, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government said the changes in Washington meant the “American boot” had been lifted off Hungary’s chest and that events like Pride no longer enjoyed US protection.
Serbian authorities cited Trump’s claims of fraud at USAID to launch raids against pro-democracy civil society groups. Georgia’s government similarly used the USAID aid freeze to vow to pursue new restrictions against media and civil society, including a proposed ban on foreign funding for media.
Other leaders have not openly cited Trump, but analysts see clear links between their actions and Trump’s rule: Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is betting that Trump won’t challenge the jailing of a top rival, while some have drawn comparisons between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent efforts to oust critics in this government and Trump’s prioritization of loyalists for key posts.
Some world leaders invoke Trump to justify political crackdowns
Analysts argue that the US president’s upending of political norms has emboldened autocratic leaders around the world.
www.semafor.com
Analysts argue that US President Donald Trump’s upending of political norms has emboldened autocratic leaders around the world to pursue crackdowns on human rights and democracy.
Some leaders have explicitly invoked Trump’s return to power as justification for their moves: After Hungary’s parliament voted this month to ban an annual LBGTQ+ Pride parade, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government said the changes in Washington meant the “American boot” had been lifted off Hungary’s chest and that events like Pride no longer enjoyed US protection.
Serbian authorities cited Trump’s claims of fraud at USAID to launch raids against pro-democracy civil society groups. Georgia’s government similarly used the USAID aid freeze to vow to pursue new restrictions against media and civil society, including a proposed ban on foreign funding for media.
Other leaders have not openly cited Trump, but analysts see clear links between their actions and Trump’s rule: Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is betting that Trump won’t challenge the jailing of a top rival, while some have drawn comparisons between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent efforts to oust critics in this government and Trump’s prioritization of loyalists for key posts.
Donald Trump is a mirror.
This is what sane people have to deal with. Conservatives, who vastly overestimate their knowledge and intelligence, get to see what we see everyday. Ignorant, lying, incompetence. Temper tantrums. All while putting all our lives at risk.
This is why liberals are mean to you. The tolerant left tolerates you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is what sane people have to deal with. Conservatives, who vastly overestimate their knowledge and intelligence, get to see what we see everyday. Ignorant, lying, incompetence. Temper tantrums. All while putting all our lives at risk.
This is why liberals are mean to you. The tolerant left tolerates you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
The tolerant left is climbing out on sheds to assassinate the opposition candidate and showing up to Democrat members of Congress' town halls saying "niceness doesn't work so are you ready for violence?"
The conservatives sane idea of banning males from girls and women's sports isn't putting lives at risk. The so-called tolerant left's shooting bullets at people they disagree with definitely is.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
We, the United States, are lucky it wasn't worse, and everyone in that Signal group should have known better.House Republican on war plans chat: ‘There’s no doubt that Russia and China saw this stuff’
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said there’s “no doubt” that Russia and China were monitoring the U.S. officials’ devices used for a war plan text chat. “I will guarantee you, 99.99 percent with conf…
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said there’s “no doubt” that Russia and China were monitoring the U.S. officials’ devices used for a war plan text chat.
“I will guarantee you, 99.99 percent with confidence, Russia and China are monitoring those two phones,” Bacon told CNN’s Manu Raju. “So I just think it’s a security violation, and there’s no doubt that Russia and China saw this stuff within hours of the actual attacks on Yemen or the Houthis.”
Chuck Schumer warned them eight years ago that this was a possibility when he said “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday to get back at you.”
https://nypost.com/2017/01/11/schumer-predicted-intelligence-officials-would-get-back-at-trump/
Jeffery Goldberg is one of the harshest critics of the Trump administration with the largest platform. The chances that particular journalist was added inadvertently to the Signal group are nonexistent. Someone who had gained access to National Security Advisor Michael Walz's Signal account added Jeffery Goldberg, and it wasn't Michael Walz.
I predict the one who used Michael Walz's Signal account to add Jeffery Goldberg to that group will never be discovered as those in the US government whose job it is to know how such a thing could be facilitated will strangely be unable to find the culprit.
enchilada_style
Well-Known Member
Good luck to those that have made it their life mission to defend this administration for the next four years. It’s like trying to defend a Luka trade every single day.
No chance of this happening.