I want Trump's helicopter that's for sale
Jesus! You can't post that kinda stuff in the open! All of this talk about helicopters will get you put on a watch list!
United States Amy Coney Barrett Nominated & Confirmed to Supreme Court
- Thread starter almostinsane
- Start date
Jesus! You can't post that kinda stuff in the open! All of this talk about helicopters will get you put on a watch list!
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
I want a personal communication with him just so we can share shit posts.I want Trump's helicopter that's for sale
These were both 5-3 decisions it seems, which means Roberts is trying to get these cases through before ACB can fully read up on them and vote on them.
This is some dirty pool, and shows that Roberts may be one of Bush Jrs. most damaging legacies.
Nah, still the intervention in Afghanistan
I thought Iraq was worse than A-Stan.
A-stan at least was harboring bin Laden; Iraq was just Bush Jr trying to impress daddy and using lies to justify the invasion.
They wernt lying. We just did not act quick enough before the weapons were removed.
There has always been weapons, and multiple sources and arguments on here have shown it.
A-stan has the taliban.
Yeah, Iraq had some chem/bio stuff, but not nukes like was sold to the US people.
A-stan was justified, Iraq wasn't.
The justification was Chemical weapons and perhaps unknown nukes. Nukes were never the main reason. Iraq was justified.
A-stan was only justified when we knew Osama was there, once we knew he left we should have pulled the fuck out, or after he was killed
Yeah, we should have pulled out of A-stan once Osama was no longer in the country, or after he was killed.
But those rare earth metals in A-stan the media never talk about are rather tempting in their own right. Keeping them secure/out of Chinese hands I think was the real impetus to stay after the first few years.
As for Iraq, come on, I'm not some scrub who's uninformed about some of the intricacies of what happened there.
The chem/bio stuff turned out to have been mostly destroyed/dismantled by Saddam due to anti-coup paranoia, but he kept acting like he still had them to scare other countries, and he at most had some uranium cake, not anything close to a usable nuke. I've heard the rumors from a former scout sniper that it was most about getting rid of Saddam's sons because they were worse than the old man.
He made sure he would not be caught with them and got rid of them before we got to them.
That is what it was.
His sons were also terrible
Getting rid of chemical weapons on short notice isn't exactly as easy as what your describing here, as their are only a select few facilities that can do so properly, doing otherwise would leave traces especially when it involves burning them in the open.
Edit: Lets leave this discussion or take it to PM or make a thread to avoid a derail.
I will leave the argument, but real quick. I am not saying he destroyed them.
But yeah this is a derail
Pretty sure he's meant the alleged nukes, not the bio/chem stuff.
Those were mostly secretly dismantled a while before the invasion, it's just Saddam pretended to still have them to look strong.
It's part of the Dem strategy.
The Democrats think that if Trump "wins" on the 3rd, then they can use the extra days of voting to try and push people to vote. Essentially, I think they believe they can overturn the election by scaring people who otherwise would not vote into voting after saying "See? He's going to win again! You have to stop him!"
They ran a sort of test-run in Arizona in 2018. I think they're praying to flip enough votes in enough states to win. From what I'm looking at, the Dems have already poisoned Pennsylvania (3 days after election), and North Carolina (7 days!). Now, these are mail-in-ballots from what I understand, but I suspect there will be pressure to keep accepting new ballots and therefore tip the elections. They tried for Wisconsin, but the new SCOTUS shot it down. Hard.
This does suggest to me some interesting things. First that the Democrats are concerned that they won't win Pennsylvania or Wisconsin and are therefore trying to stack the deck against Trump. It also tells me they think they might be able to take North Carolina.
That said, I think Trump will probably win. If he can secure Wisconsin, Florida, and Pennsylvania--then that takes him to 273 out of the needed 270. I am of course assuming that he can win Texas, Arizona, Iowa, Georgia, and Ohio without any trouble. I don't buy that these are all so against Trump that they're swing states now. I suspect it's a narrative being pressed by certain outlets to try and avoid the reality that four of the five or six actual swing states this election are located in the Mid-West's Blue Wall region.
Trump doesn't need to win 12 swing states. He needs to win Pennsylvania, Florida, and Wisconsin to win. Three states that he won last election (Presidents tend to retain the same states they won/lost previous times, with slight variation) and against an underwhelming opponent who just obviously alienated some Pennsylvanian voters. Meanwhile, Biden needs to win either the same states Trump does or more likely he has to flip 4 states (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin/North Carolina). And Trump won all of those save Minnesota...which was just torn down by disengaged Democrats and may have pushed swing voters to energized Republican voters.
f1onagher
Well-known member
I will say now what I said months ago. If by some miracle Joe wins on election night I will abide by it as legitimate. If he 'wins' even the next day or afterward it's illegitimate. This is a flagrant attempt to game the system and the fact that it's even being entertained, let alone allowed, makes a mockery of the American electoral process. Vote early or vote on time, but voting late, even for mail-in, is unacceptable.