Jared ain't a bad kid for a yid, and she has a good prenup.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5F2bjvJytA

Again, this is whining gibberish. Muslims in my neck of the country are anything but second class citizens. Go to Dearborn or southwest Detroit. There you will find Muslims living in a class WELL above second.

As far as not being comfortable about the way someone is looking at you, get over it. Most everyone else has. If you prove your merit in this country, your chances of rising above those looks is better than in most.

As for CAIR, the fact that she got its founding date, as well as its mission, wrong shows me that she not only got it wrong about America, but she even gets it wrong about her religion. Maybe she's just plain wrong.

Typical of the master of verbiage, much spoken, little said.

You just keep making accusations, attempting to marginalize, to discredit, without actually discussing the original issue.

It was "some people", but since you digress here is a little Calico Caligula on Muslims. By the way he's up to twenty tweets today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viDffWUjcBA

This is what Ilhan was speaking of when she said "some People did something"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZVXRR4sops

Why do you think that?

When Hilary said that Trump supporters are deplorable and irredeemable, did you wonder why she thinks that?

I think that, because unlike you who gets a chubby every time a liberal speaks, I pay attention.

the "something" they did, was murder 3,000 people, forcing more than a few to choose between burning to death, and jumping to their death. True or false?

You're pathetic.

I believe she said some were deplorable which is pretty much the case.

Yes, I don't pay attention, good lord.

Why again Jim do you think she despises Jews? Is it because she's Muslim?

Perhaps the sheer volume of anti-Trump threads and replies that you post gets a little difficult for you to keep up with. Don't know which original issue you're talking about, the stable genius and Taliban, Jared Kushner being a good kid for a yid, feel free to cut and paste, percentage of Jews and Arabs in Israel, what Israel is doing in Palestine, and more. But the issue I responded to was your post of the full context of Ilhan's "some people remark."

You created that issue, not me. If that was not discussing the original issue, then you're guilty of it. I responded to the context that you posted. And contrary to what you claim, I said a lot and I pointed out my rationale for saying it.

And then you end it by creating a new issue "Caligula on Muslims." Take a rest and get it together.

She said half, which is tens of millions of the people she claimed to want to serve. You had no issue with that, in fact you agree with it. Good for you.

I think she despises Jews because she said Allah needs to show the world what Israel is really doing, she said when Jews negotiate with Americans it's all about the Benjamins (added "baby" because she's just so stinking hip and cool). Combine her statements with her religion, I think we've got a real, old-fashioned Jew hater there. And these are just the things she says when she knows she's on camera.

Spence, I know you feel great anxiety when confronted with anything that doesn't fit into your view of liberal=good, conservative=bad. You may want to avoid Omar, and focus on Trump.

I think she also publicly regretted using the word half. It was politically clumsy but given what we've seen from Trump and a lot of his supporters not that far off.

She's said some things that might be politically inflammatory but that's her right to do so. I wouldn't disagree with a lot of what she's said and I'm no hater of Jews. Hell, my kids are Jewish by birth.

She got almost 80% of the vote in her district, just absolutely pounded the Republican opponent, you don't think Jews voted for her?

I'm having problems reconciling your positions.

"I think she also publicly regretted using the word half."

Every time it comes back to bite them in the polls, they regret it. Only then. So I'm not impressed. Not when she does it, not when Trump does it. Does he ever do it? Anyway, calling tens of millions of people deplorable and irredeemable is a heck of a thing, I believe she meant it exactly as it came out of her big, fat mouth. Good riddance to bad garbage, as they say...

"She's said some things that might be politically inflammatory but that's her right to do so"

No one is saying she should be locked up. Of course there's no law against bigotry.

"She got almost 80% of the vote in her district, just absolutely pounded the Republican opponent, you don't think Jews voted for her?"

Her district is very heavily Somali, I believe. But I'm sire Jews would vote for her, just as there are white straight men who voted for Hilary, and Vietnam vets who voted for Blumenthal. That she got more than zero votes from a segment, doesn't mean she doesn't hate that segment. I'm pretty comfortable saying she doesn't like then, based on evidence. As always, you defend the liberal. Always, always, always. Shocker.

Her district was once represented by Keith Ellison. They like their liberal nutjobs in MN-5.

"I'm having problems reconciling your positions"

That's because my positions, unlike yours, aren't blindly partisan. Name one single significant policy position on which you think liberals have it wrong. Anything?

"Some people did something". Seriously, Spence?

.

She should have said 40% which I think is the percentage of people who thought Obama was a Muslim and born in Kenya without any proof.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Too many people believe what they hear. That's why it's irresponsible for Sean Hannity to say Obama wasn't born here, and it's reckless for CNN to say that Trump has killed millions more than Stalin.

By the way, all Obama had to do to end that once and for all, was produce the official long form (or whatever), Took him a long time to do that. My guess, he withheld it so the GOP radical extremists would continue to embarrass themselves. That was a smart play.

Diplomats, career or otherwise, come and go. Old ones leave, new ones arrive. So do those in other countries. It constantly changes. Trust based on longevity and comfort within bureaucracies leads to stagnant relationships that don't reflect actual political realities. And to an inability to react to quickly changing positions in those who hold the real power. They work best in stable political worlds rather than being the reason for stability.

At any rate, are we to think that those 60% who left were what has held the world together before Trump? Did they really do a good job of it? Have there been more wars since Trump and his diplomats have taken over?

I don’t believe that history will treat Trump well. It is rarely clear what the effect of political action is when it occurs, the theater is too large and tangled.
It’s possible Trump might get lucky and have nothing happen.
I would be happy if he went back to reality TV, Howard Stern and porn stars.
I think he would be also.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump 2020
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

deep thoughts

Best mob boss of our lifetime 🤡🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

One of his lieutenants threatened to fire NOAA officials over sharpie gate, how pathetic is this crap. This clown is all about control and making family money.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

sounds like the clintons...at least trump doesn't have people killed...yet

hang on, CNN said last week he has killed millions more than Hitler and Stalin! that’s a lot! are you suggesting that’s not accurate? typical trumplican.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And Fox said Trump is a racist, are you suggesting that’s not accurate?
Typical
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Vincente?

who said it, and what was the reply?

on cnn, when the guest ( head of
psychiatry at Duke) said Trump has
murdered millions, the host said
nothing. i wouldn’t hold
a network responsible
for everything a guest says, but the
hosts job is to intervene if the guest goes berserk.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When you say CNN blah blah you failed to say it was a guest, it’s just CNN said. So Stelter f’d up, it’s not like he had a Sharpie.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...this-is-insane
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And what she said is over the top, but Trump did say “I don’t want to kill 10 million people,” he said. “I have plans on Afghanistan that if I wanted to win that war, Afghanistan would be wiped off the face of the earth, it would be gone, it would be over in literally 10 days.” He threatened to commit genocide, just joking I guess.

Here’s what she said

"Calling Trump crazy hides the fact that we're crazy for having elected him and even crazier for allowing his crazy policies to persist," Allen Frances, the author of "Twilight of American Sanity," said on CNN's "Reliable Sources." "Trump is as destructive a person in this century as Hitler, Stalin and Mao were in the last century. He may be responsible for many more million deaths than they were. He needs to be contained, but he needs to be contained by attacking his policies, not his person."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i failed to say it was a guest? are you feeling ok? look at
my post which you quoted for god’s sake. i said it was a guest. but the host didn’t say anything. not a word asking the guest if he was insane.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She is not bluffing. She is not connoting. She is not saying that she does not want to accuse Trump. She is deliberately accusing him of some unsubstantiated and obviously ridiculous possibility. Or she may be lying.

As Spence would say, "big difference."

Feel fine, I did and it's not to be found.

You did say it in your response.

You have forgotten that nothing in Trump world is too ridiculous to be impossible. What effect did her saying that have? Did it do anything other than reinforce some people on either sides beliefs and second hand piss Jim off.

As far as Trump goes, I agree with Tillerson, Kelly and Mattis. He has no clue about foreign policy, how to negotiate or what an achievable end goal is. He is not willing to learn, since he has a very smart gut and knows better than anyone. He did threaten the Afghans with genocide.
“I have plans on Afghanistan that if I wanted to win that war, Afghanistan would be wiped off the face of the earth, it would be gone, it would be over in literally 10 days.”

Trying to spin it into 10 million means something assumes that the Stable Genius has a clue about how many people live in Afghanistan. I would surmise that it is but one of the many numbers he has made up, I know it is not exact.

I don't know where you find your definitions but the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation, is the Oxford definition of genocide.

I don't know why you don't know where I found the definition. I specifically quoted Webster (common shorthand for the most prestigious American dictionary Merriam Webster). So, according to Oxford, killing a large group of Germans in WWII was genocide.

Fool, if you kill a whole nation it’s not genocide?
Good luck with that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

First, I went by your choice of definition by the Oxford Dictionary, as well as Webster's. By those definitions, we committed genocide. By those definitions, all wars in which large numbers of people are killed would be considered to be genocides. There is a reason that they are not, except by people who have some agenda, anti-war, hate for or ideological differences with the winners, etc. Destruction caused by war, especially defensive war against those who try to kill or destroy you, is considered horrific collateral damage. Genocide is the killing of large numbers of people with whom you are not necessarily at war with for domination or defense, but whom you wish to eliminate simply because they are who they are. We do not consider the destruction of the German state along with the killing of millions of Germans in WWI and WWII to be genocides. We didn't consider the destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima to be genocides.

Second, Your quote "I don’t want to kill 10 million people,” he said. “I have plans on Afghanistan that if I wanted to win that war, Afghanistan would be wiped off the face of the earth, it would be gone, it would be over in literally 10 days” begins with Trump saying he didn't want to kill 10 million people. That is the opposite of genocide in which the intended objective is absolutely to kill those people. Nor did Trump express any animus against Afghans or any desire to kill them all. Which is the opposite of the motivation for genocide. His quote actually, if you read it carefully, implies that he doesn't even want to have that war as in "if I wanted to win that war".

What he did imply was that among the various plans for dealing with the Taliban, there was one that could result in the destruction of the Afghan state. I would assume that if he wanted to commit genocide that he would have gone along with that plan, actually did it, basically so he could kill all the Afghans, not merely to win a war. He didn't. And it wouldn't have been considered genocide, just as the destruction of the German state in WWII was not considered genocide. He even wanted to meet with the Taliban to work things out. Which is the opposite of wanting to commit genocide.

But, by the simplistic definitions in Oxford and Webster, one could say that it would be genocide. And that our wars in Germany, and Japan, and Viet Nam were genocides. If that is what you actually think, then I have a glimmer of insight into why you think Trump threatened genocide rather than to win a war.

But, actually, I believe you chose that word for effect rather than accuracy. You like to paint everything Trump does or says as a horror show. And I think you are not only a fool for thinking that Trump actually threatened genocide, but that you are a malevolent ideologue who wants to destroy Trump--a sort of mini political and even personal "genocide" against him.

Genocide, much like Collusion is not a crime.
However the premeditated mass killing of civilians certainly is a war crime. That is what Trump threatened the Afghans with. Proportionality is a basic part of the Law of War and while Trump may think he can do whatever he wants, he would be committing a war crime. I attached a link to the DOD Law of War Manual so you can, if you like, determine which one(s) he would be charged with or how he would be exonerated.
The only plan like this that exists is in Trumps head.
As far as the feasibility of what he claimed to be able to do, it is not possible (we do not have enough bombs to totally obliterate Afghanistan), strategically insane (using all our bombs would leave us vulnerable), if you did bomb the urban centers you would leave the 22 million people in rural areas without a central government (Do you think that would radicalize them?) and therefor stupid to a Trumpian degree.
I think we should have less involvement in the Middle East. The importance of the region is much less than it was 20 years ago.
However the war in that area is not over and withdrawal is more complicated than maintaining the status quo or winning.
I have seen no evidence that Trump is capable of the required attention to details, the intellectual investment on the part of the commander in chief, and that he has a clear-eyed understanding of both our capabilities and the limits of our power to accomplish it.
I don't have to paint The Citrus Caligula as a horror show, he puts it on every day in this, the first ever, Presidential reality horror show starring Donald Trump. Coming to you on TV and Twitter.

https://archive.defense.gov/pubs/law...-june-2015.pdf

deep thoughts

You accuse Trump of threatening genocide. Something that is not possible is not a threat. And if genocide is not a crime, are you now changing your charge from genocide to "war crime"? And is a threat, especially an impossible one, a war crime? And you keep painting, even though you say you don't have to. You keep trying very, very, hard to do what you don't think is necessary.

Something strange is going on with you. TDS?