Poll: 55 percent of Americans think Trump killing Soleimani made the U.S. less safe

  
Via:  tessylo  •  3 months ago  •  98 comments

By:   The Week

Poll: 55 percent of Americans think Trump killing Soleimani made the U.S. less safe

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


World

Poll: 55 percent of Americans think Trump killing Soleimani made the U.S. less safe






06422c50-e164-11e9-bfbd-cdb74fdcbf3a January 9, 2020, 10:39 AM EST









980f0b7c265288a7e2eeda08a2e6ef95

A majority of Americans don't seem to be buying the Trump administration's rationale for killing Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleiman, according to a new poll.

In a   USA TODAY /Ipsos poll   released Thursday, 55 percent of U.S. adults said the United States' recent drone strike that killed Soleimani and its immediate aftermath made the country less safe.

The administration has contended the opposite in the days since the strike. Vice President Mike Pence, for example,   told   Today   in an interview Thursday   that "America is safer" as a result of Trump's decision.

But only 24 percent of Americans in this poll said the strike made the country safer, and almost a third of Republicans said the strike made the U.S. less safe. Even so, 42 percent of Americans still supported the Soleimani strike, while 33 percent opposed it and 25 percent didn't know what to think about it.

Fifty-two percent of those surveyed also described Trump's behavior with Iran as "reckless," while 62 percent said the strike that killed Soleimani made it more likely that the United States and Iran will go to war. Forty-seven percent said they believe Trump authorized the bombing to distract from impeachment.

USA Today 's poll was taken by surveying 1,005 adults online on Jan. 7 and Jan. 8, and it was completed prior to Trump's recent address. The margin of error is 3.5 percentage points. Read the   full results at   USA Today .




Article is Locked by Moderator

smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Tessylo
1  seeder  Tessylo    3 months ago

I take comfort in the fact that Iran doesn't blame the U.S., they blame tRump.  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Tessylo @1    3 months ago
I take comfort in the fact that Iran doesn't blame the U.S., they blame tRump.

Big shit.  They'll still kill you given the opportunity, regardless of who is president.

They've hated the US and wanted our destruction since they declared war on us when they seized our Embassy in Tehran and took diplomats hostage.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1    3 months ago

Looks like tRump's support is at 24%.  

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.2  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.1    3 months ago

Where did you get that BS from?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @1    3 months ago

Of course you do. It was pointed out long ago that progressives don't consider themselves Americans unless on of their own is President. Party over country ever time for them.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2    3 months ago

Projection at its' finest.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.3  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @1    3 months ago

You could probably also take comfort in the fact that Iran is a lot less scary than you have been led to believe. They're definitely a menace in their little corner of the world, but beyond that, they aren't much of a threat.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.3.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tacos! @1.3    3 months ago
They're definitely a menace in their little corner of the world

Very true, I don't expect them to fire an ICBM at NYC but here's the thing....where do we have a lot of troops deployed? And something I thought about in the shower this morning...it doesn't take a lot of know how or technology to construct a chemical weapon. They have the SAMs...just strap a 50 pound bottle of chlorine gas on to it and you've got a chemical bomb.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.3.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.3.1    3 months ago
And something I thought about in the shower this morning...

not Squidword ?

 
 
 
squiggy
2  squiggy    3 months ago
"I take comfort in the fact that Iran doesn't blame the U.S., they blame tRump." ...much like I blame Obama's Libya Liberation for searing fear into Kim's mind - leaving the necessity of nukes his passion.
 
 
 
Ronin2
2.1  Ronin2  replied to  squiggy @2    3 months ago

To be fair Clinton, Bush, and Obama made all 3rd world regimes very nervous.

Of they were all Establishment candidates, so that makes what they did OK./S

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3  Vic Eldred    3 months ago

There is a lot of danger in the world. Doing the right thing takes courage.

To the title, I'll refer to FDR at the dawn of the Second World War - "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    3 months ago

Your 'president' doesn't have an iota of courage in his big fat pig stinky greasy body.  

 
 
 
bugsy
4  bugsy    3 months ago

Can you post the methodology of this poll?

I would be very, very surprised to not find democrats over sampled, or that the majority of those polled were in the northeast or west coast.

 
 
 
loki12
4.1  loki12  replied to  bugsy @4    3 months ago

The sample includes 429 Democrats, 387 Republicans, and 115 Independents.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/majority-less-safe-after-killing-iranian-general

The poll also has a credibility interval plus or minus 5.4 percentage points for Democrats, plus or minus 5.7 percentage points for Republicans, and plus or minus 10.4 percentage points for Independents.

My dogs shit is more accurate a predicting the results than this "survey".

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  loki12 @4.1    3 months ago

 [Deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  loki12 @4.1    3 months ago

It was also taken on the 6th and 7th so it doesn't reflect what's (not) happened since....

And it also shows, by a margin of nine percent, Americans approve of it.

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.3  loki12  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.1    3 months ago

Removed for context - s

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.4  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.1    3 months ago

Removed for context - s

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.5  bugsy  replied to  loki12 @4.1    3 months ago

Thanks for that information, loki.

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.1.6  Split Personality  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.1    3 months ago

I had an issue with a neighbor who called the popo because he thought one of my dogs got loose and shit on his pristine

lawn.  Mind you this was effing January in NJ.

The officer and I went to my back yard first, then the neighbors and said nope.

The offending dog shit was 100% dog shit.

My dog shit had tinsel, crayons and pink insulation in it, possibly some wood or cardboard.

So yeah, it's actually a good thing to check yer pets poo.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.7  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.6    3 months ago

I'm tired of this off topic dogshit talk.  I shouldn't have responded to loki in the first place.

Either remove all dogshit comments or please stop talking about dogshit goddamnit!

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.8  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.6    3 months ago

So your neighbor thought your dog was taking a trump on their lawn?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.1.9  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.8    3 months ago
So your neighbor thought your dog was taking a trump on their lawn?

I thought you were tired of the dog shit talk? To the point, it seems, of getting comments removed. So, when are you going to detract your post at #6. Asking for a friend.......................

Tessy, loki, and Jim - 

This thread is closed.  It is beginning to look like Swiss cheese from all the deleted comments.  Please carry on a discussion about the topic of the article in a new thread.  If the discussion continues to go off-topic, the article will be locked.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.10  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1.9    3 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
JBB
5  JBB    3 months ago

Do you feel less safe? I certainly do...

 
 
 
bugsy
5.1  bugsy  replied to  JBB @5    3 months ago
Do you feel less safe? I certainly do...

Democrat talking point.

 
 
 
loki12
5.1.1  loki12  replied to  bugsy @5.1    3 months ago

I felt a lot safer before we sent them 150 billion to pay for terrorists world wide. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  loki12 @5.1.1    3 months ago

That debunked bullshit yet again.  

 
 
 
loki12
5.1.3  loki12  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.2    3 months ago

Just to clarify, did we send them 150 billion yes or no, and did they use that money to sponsor terrorism? 

 
 
 
bugsy
5.1.4  bugsy  replied to  loki12 @5.1.3    3 months ago

They know the answer is yes to both, but they have to defend their messiah at all costs.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
5.1.5  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  loki12 @5.1.3    3 months ago

We should have just sent them the antiquated, at least by that time, equipment that they supposedly paid for in advance. Isn't that what the money was purported to have been for?  NO interest accrual included. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.6  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  loki12 @5.1.3    3 months ago

NO AND NO

It was their money.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.7  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  loki12 @5.1.3    3 months ago
Just to clarify, did we send them 150 billion yes or no

No.

U.S. Treasury Department estimates put the number at about $50 billion in Iran's own “usable liquid assets,” that had been frozen, according to 2015 testimony from Adam Szubin, acting under secretary of treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence. The deal with Iran was for them to give up all their nuclear ambitions and ability and agree to be heavily monitored for the next 15 years in exchange for access to their own money/assets and a lifting of some financial sanctions. By all accounts, they had been abiding by their end of the bargain until dishonest Donald abruptly pulled the plug on the US participation in a global deal made by the P5+1 (the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China—plus Germany) and the European Union, not "Obama".

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/obama-didnt-give-iran-150-billion-in-cash/

So please stop repeating all the bullshit lies coming out of this dishonest Presidents mouth. He gets his news from Breitbart and Fox, so of course he can't be trusted. Stop letting the right wing "alternative fact" machine delude you, you're all smarter than that, you don't have to let yourselves be deceived unless you wanted to be deceived and the insertion of the head into Trumps voluminous backside was intentional. If that's the case, then I supposed there really isn't anything anyone can do to change your mind until someone changes dirty Donald's diaper.

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.1.8  Split Personality  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.5    3 months ago

That would have been a possibility if they still existed. What were they buying, F4s?  They only exist in museums now I believe.

The only US aircraft Iran ever had were F4, F5 and they are still flying F-14s

And I understand that giving them back their own money with interest meant that it would be to some percentage

be used against us and our allies by funding terrorists.  Obama and our allies knew that they could not control that.

Nor could they keep the money frozen for 40 more years.

But the alternative to the negotiated $1.7 billion was to let the

World Court pass a judgement of $8 to 10 billion against the USA which would have financed far more more attacks against us & Israel.

which we would not have honored and would have caused political damage to the UN, NATO and our own

legal reputation/standing in the world.

Keep in mind that Treasury had discovered a secret Iranian account of $2 Billion in NYC in 2012 which Obama promptly froze

and declared it would be divided among any claimant against Iran, including military.

Iran sued and the case went to the Supreme Court which decided for Obama.

Iran sued in the World Court which last year agreed to make a judgement but warned Iran that it's "dirty hands"

would be factored in to whatever judgement would be rendered.

So we have come back to the same dilemma ( for some people); if the WC finds for the USA all is well.

If the WC finds partially or all for Iran ( unlikely ) the it will be up to President Trump to concur or tell the WC

to go to hell.

hence, the human game continues...

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.1.9  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.8    3 months ago
The $150 billion

The 2015 agreement freed up Iranian assets that had been frozen under sanctions. Called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the deal included Iran and the United States, China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the European Union.

The agreement only affected sanctions imposed to punish Iran for its nuclear program. Iran has other assets that remain frozen.

Some conservatives have put the amount released after lifted sanctions as high as $150 billion, which is the highest of estimates we have seen. Another estimate from Iran’s Central Bank topped out at about $29 billion in readily available funds, with another $45 billion tied up in Chinese investment projects and the foreign assets of the Iran’s Oil Ministry.

After talking with officials at Iran’s Central Bank, Nader Habibi, professor of economics of the Middle East at Brandeis University, believes the actual total is between $25 billion and $50 billion.

In July 2015 , U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew told lawmakers Iran would gain access to $56 billion.

It’s important to know that little of that money was under the control of the United States or any U.S. bank. Most of it, Habibi said, was in central and commercial banks overseas. Furthermore, it was Iran’s money to begin with, not a payment from any government to buy Iran’s cooperation.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/apr/27/donald-trump/donald-trump-iran-150-billion-and-18-billion-c/

So, No.  Neither Obama, the US or the other signatories gave Iran $150 Billion dollars as President Trump has repeated.

they did unfreeze something less than $60 billion.

 
 
 
katrix
5.1.10  katrix  replied to  loki12 @5.1.3    3 months ago
Just to clarify, did we send them 150 billion yes or no, and did they use that money to sponsor terrorism? 

Jesus Christ, don't you ever read any accurate news?

 
 
 
loki12
5.1.11  loki12  replied to  katrix @5.1.10    3 months ago

Are you saying we didn't send Iran 150 billion? I made no claim as to whether or not it was theirs, but we did absolutely send them money did we not?  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.12  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  katrix @5.1.10    3 months ago
Jesus Christ, don't you ever read any accurate news?

Of course not, they're being indoctrinated inside the right wing "alternative fact" machine to believe anything outside of their propaganda is "fake news" and an "enemy of the people". It's how populists, despots and dictators have always built a barrier against any logic, reason and intelligence that doesn't align with their personal political objectives.

 
 
 
katrix
5.1.13  katrix  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.12    3 months ago

And Trump is laughing his ass off at their gullibility, as are the alt-right assholes who are manipulating Trump.

 
 
 
loki12
5.1.14  loki12  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.9    3 months ago
In July 2015 , U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew told lawmakers Iran would gain access to $56 billion.

The CBO says this is bullshit, So an Obama liar or the non-partisan CBO, I know who I'm going with.

During 2012-2015, when the global community was relatively united in pressuring Iran,
Iran’s economy shrank as its crude oil exports fell by more than 50%, and Iran had limited ability to utilize its
$120 billion in assets held abroad.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS20871.pdf

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.15  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.6    3 months ago
It was their money

Why is that important? We confiscate money and private property from drug dealers and other criminals all the time. We don't give it back to them when we let them out of jail. Why should we return money we confiscated from people who kidnap our citizens and are the biggest exporters of terrorism on the planet?

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.1.16  Split Personality  replied to  loki12 @5.1.14    3 months ago

So you are saying that 120 now equals 150 ??

Interesting.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.17  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  loki12 @5.1.14    3 months ago
Iran had limited ability to utilize its $120 billion in assets held abroad.

So I take it you're not familiar with the definitions of "limited ability" and "utilize"?

Above, we have a Trump loyalist repeating the lie about "Obama" giving Iran $150 billion. This is an obvious, easily disproved lie.

You then link the actual PDF of the updated Iran sanctions that disproves your own lie. Besides the number being $30 billion lower than your repeated lie, it directly states that only a part of that total was completely frozen. How does it feel to hoist yourself on your own petard?

"The phrase's meaning is literally that the bomb-maker (a "petard" is a small explosive device) is blown up ("hoisted" off the ground) by his own bomb, and indicates an ironic reversal, or poetic justice."

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.1.18  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.15    3 months ago

International laws?

What we do to our own citizens is of no matter in this conversation.

 
 
 
loki12
5.1.19  loki12  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.16    3 months ago

When you can't make an intelligent response you tell people what they said, Let me clarify for you, the 120 was frozen assets, that did not include the money from the arms sale that we didn't deliver among other other moneys. 

But hey, you can post it was only 50ish billion again, that one made me laugh, 

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.20  Tacos!  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.18    3 months ago

I'm thinking that when they engage in kidnapping, rape, and murder, they forfeit their right to protect their assets under "international law." For me, kidnapping, rape, and murder are violations of more serious international laws than confiscating the funds of people who engage in that kind of thing. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.1.21  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.20    3 months ago

Unfortunately, it is the human game.  The old Testament endorsed the same behavior at God's direction as does the Koran.

but we may be wandering off topic here.

jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.1.22  Split Personality  replied to  loki12 @5.1.19    3 months ago

Well at the risk of repeating your own words to you, you implied that "we" sent to Iran $150 billion.

You know you misspoke and you are just spinning wheels.

Per my other comments, "we" as in in the Obama Admin negotiated to send 400 mill in cash to Iran and 1.3 billion in interest.

That is uncontested.

When the USA Germany France UK EU Russia and China crafted the Iran Nuke Deal

they unfroze Iranian assets around the globe the amount of which is

still contested by a lot of links to be between 25 billion and 120 billion

which has been exaggerated by certain media and the current President to $150 billion

the 120 was frozen assets, that did not include the money from the arms sale that we didn't deliver among other other moneys. 

So I can only assume ( I know, I know) that we are in 100% agreement

and that you are in total denial that that was ever possible.

Cheers jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
loki12
5.1.23  loki12  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.22    3 months ago

Yes we are in agreement, thanks to Obama administration Iran had between 120 and 150 billion to spend on terrorists that they didn't have before. because dumbshit never thought to add that to the deal, because quite frankly he was a failure in many things, foreign policy being number one. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.1.24  Split Personality  replied to  loki12 @5.1.23    3 months ago
thanks to Obama administration

and the French, British, Europeans, Russians and Chinese.

You really need to do something about that ODS. jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.2  XDm9mm  replied to  JBB @5    3 months ago
Do you feel less safe? I certainly do...

That's your personal problem.

I happen to like having a President in office that doesn't TALK about drifting red lines in the sand and has the balls to kill the motherfuckers when necessary.

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.2.1  Split Personality  replied to  XDm9mm @5.2    3 months ago

What happened to Presidents Trumps' red line? 

They fired missiles at our soldiers to test his resolve.

He promised Armageddon and delivered a few more sanctions instead.

Drifting red lines in the sands indeed.

 
 
 
loki12
5.2.2  loki12  replied to  Split Personality @5.2.1    3 months ago
What happened to Presidents Trumps' red line? 

Do you have a link to that red line, Like, Him saying this would be a red line if Iran crosses it like "o"dickhead did. I would like to see it.

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.2.3  Split Personality  replied to  loki12 @5.2.2    3 months ago

Oh aren't you being precise today?

Asked about potential retaliation by Iran, Trump said: “If it happens, it happens. If they do anything, there will be major retaliation.”

Trump has said the operation was conducted to avoid war with Tehran and warned against further escalation, but he has employed tough rhetoric in public, tweeting that the United States had targeted 52 Iranian sites, some "at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture" if Iran struck any American or American assets in retaliation.

https://www.iol.co.za/news/world/donald-trump-vows-major-retaliation-if-iran-strikes-back-40134920

Iran struck American assets with 12 missiles.

Where's my retaliation Loki?

more sanctions like the past 5 Presidents? 

I am sure they are shaking in their Iranian boots over that!

 
 
 
loki12
5.2.4  loki12  replied to  Split Personality @5.2.3    3 months ago

Wasn't that an Iranian base? and wasn't his red line dead Americans? exactly how many causalities were there?  And exactly what American assets were destroyed? they killed a runway, 500 worth of asphalt. please show me the list of American assets that were damaged. if any.

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.2.5  Split Personality  replied to  loki12 @5.2.4    3 months ago

Iranian base lol?

You must have meant Iraqi.

When a Lockheed contractor was killed on that base, President Trump said several times, it was "our base" and he ordered airstrikes

that killed at least 27 militia.

You know the base he says he wants reimbursement for all of the improvements on?

Are you calling the POTUS a liar?

 
 
 
bugsy
5.2.6  bugsy  replied to  loki12 @5.2.4    3 months ago

Well, to be fair, Iran tweeted out that they had killed 30 Americans in their missile barrage, and MSDNC, like the good little propaganda repeaters they are, reported it as the truth.

https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/07/msnbc-iran-missiles-us-casualties-iraq/

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.2.7  Split Personality  replied to  bugsy @5.2.6    3 months ago

I heard that propaganda was 80 Americans and 30 helicopters, lol

but it's just the Iranian news feeding it to their own people.

Which is ridiculous because those people are experts at gaining access to the internet and obtaining American jeans.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
5.2.8  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Split Personality @5.2.7    3 months ago

The next morning it was the story they were telling their people. Still can't wait to see how they hide the reason for the airliner going down.

 
 
 
loki12
5.2.9  loki12  replied to  Split Personality @5.2.5    3 months ago
Iranian base lol? You must have meant Iraqi.

Thanks, i did, but now a a days is there much difference?

When a Lockheed contractor was killed on that base, President Trump said several times, it was "our base" and he ordered airstrikes

And weren't you adamantly arguing that it wasn't our base? or was that another poster?  

 
 
 
loki12
5.2.10  loki12  replied to  Split Personality @5.2.5    3 months ago

So I'm going to say that no, you don't have any reliable source that the US lost anything. Thanks,

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.2.11  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Split Personality @5.2.7    3 months ago

They should access tRump's tax returns and publish them. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.2.12  Split Personality  replied to  loki12 @5.2.10    3 months ago

It was fences, carports and runways that we installed, hence why Trump wants reimbursements and gets confused as to

whose base it is and whether a civilian Lockheed contractor was a military member or not.

Got anything else?

Cheers jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.2.13  XDm9mm  replied to  Split Personality @5.2.1    3 months ago
What happened to Presidents Trumps' red line?  They fired missiles at our soldiers to test his resolve.

And they didn't hurt anyone did they?

He promised Armageddon and delivered a few more sanctions instead. Drifting red lines in the sands indeed.

Try again.  He killed the motherfucker that neither Ballless Bush or Pussy Obama had the spine to.

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.2.14  Split Personality  replied to  XDm9mm @5.2.13    3 months ago
He killed the motherfucker that neither Ballless Bush or Pussy Obama had the spine to.

That my friend was days before and a different topic, don't you agree?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.2.15  XDm9mm  replied to  Split Personality @5.2.14    3 months ago
That my friend was days before and a different topic, don't you agree?

Nope.  I'm tired of everyone pissing and moaning about Trump doing what others didn't have the balls to do.

Had Trump not acted and Embassies were attacked and Americans killed, Trump would have been run out of town after being tarred and feathered.

Regardless of what the man ACCOMPLISHES, his haters are never satisfied and will never give him credit for anything.

 
 
 
MUVA
5.2.16  MUVA  replied to  XDm9mm @5.2.15    3 months ago

Trying to pin some of the these leftist to one position is like trying to hold jello in your hand it depends on what Trump does or says their position will change.

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.2.17  Split Personality  replied to  XDm9mm @5.2.15    3 months ago

Well the embassy was attacked, it was well choreographed and remarkably with thousands of actors not one person was injured.

Pretty amazing political theater. Good job by whoever was pulling those strings.

I had no problem vaporizing Awlaki, Binladen, Baghdadi  or Soleimani.

Only the optics were bad on the timing of the Soleimani assassination.

Other that practice your patience my friend

We have daily proof positive that ODS is very hard to shake.

No doubt that 6 or 12 years down the road we will still be dealing with TDS.

It's the new "normal".

Cheers

Having tornado warnings, have to bring in the cars now, later

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
5.2.18  igknorantzrulz  replied to  XDm9mm @5.2.15    3 months ago

Regardless of what the man ACCOMPLISHES, his haters are never satisfied and will never give him credit for anything.

ill give him credit,

but being the laughing stock, while unsettling the world, doesn't exactly make one proud.

.

how many ideas is he gonna use as examples(Excuses) of IMMINENT Danger ?

 
 
 
Tessylo
6  seeder  Tessylo    3 months ago

Justice Department Effectively Ends Clinton Investigation After Finding Nothing: Report

Community   »   Discussions   »   Category   » News & Politics »   Discussion   » Justice Department Effectively Ends Clinton Investigation After Finding Nothing: Report
liked.png?skin=ntNewsTalkers3&v=15780731   3  
  
Via:    tessylo    •    3 hours ago    •    19 comments

By:    Sanjana Karanth Huffpost  E N T

Politics
1b7bcfa0-ffe6-11e8-abbe-535ccd54ed26   January 9, 2020, 11:26 PM EST
5e17f47f2500009729990528.jpg

Justice Department Effectively Ends Clinton Investigation After Finding Nothing: Report

 Department of Justice   inquiry into   Hillary Clinton   that began after conservatives demanded more investigations into the former Democratic presidential candidate is reportedly ending with no actual results.

Then-Attorney General    Jeff Sessions appointed U.S. Attorney John Huber    in 2018 to look into concerns raised by President   Donald Trump   and his Republican allies that the   FBI   did not properly look into Clinton’s involvement in a uranium deal while she was secretary of state in the Obama administration.

Huber allegedly reviewed documents and spoke with federal law enforcement officials in Arkansas who were handling an investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Though the inquiry has not formally ended and no official notice has been sent to the Justice Department or to Congress, Huber has effectively finished his assignment and found nothing worth pursuing, current and former officials told The Washington Post    in a report published Thursday.    HuffPost has not been able to independently confirm that the inquiry has ended.

Canadian mining company Uranium One, which had major U.S. holdings,    was sold in 2010 to a Russian firm    while Clinton was secretary of state. The sale required approval from nine U.S. agencies, including the State Department, before it could proceed. Conservative media and critics of the 2016 Democratic nominee    have falsely claimed that       the sale was a quid pro quo for donations    to the nonprofit Clinton Foundation.

The State Department did not have the power to unilaterally approve or reject the sale, and Clinton was    not actually directly involved    in the approval process. The original FBI investigation into whether Clinton had ties to the deal    found no evidence    of wrongdoing, but    Sessions revived the inquiry in late 2017    after facing pressure from Trump. 

Huber’s effective conclusion of his review is likely to anger many Republicans who hoped the top prosecutor from Utah would validate their long-held conspiracy theories about Clinton.

Attorney General William Barr, a Trump nominee who succeeded Sessions,    has previously supported    the president’s call to investigate Clinton    and has questioned the need    for Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. A spokesperson for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s request for comment.

But Trump has largely shifted his focus away from Huber’s investigation and toward U.S. Attorney John Durham’s review of the origins of the Russia investigation, which concluded with a report that    Russia had interfered in the 2016 election    in order to help Trump win.    Barr appointed Durham to the review    last year, though he allegedly sees    no evidence so far that the Russia probe was a setup    by intelligence officials,    as Trump claims.

 
 
 
bugsy
6.1  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @6    3 months ago

Why is the seeder of the original seed now posting off topic stories.

Deflection from the original BS?

Author Discretion

The author defines the topic and has the right to ask members to stay on topic (as defined) and not disrupt the article.

Therefore, in my opinion, the seeder cannot be off topic on their own seeds. SP
 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  bugsy @6.1    3 months ago

'Why is the seeder of the original seed now posting off topic stories.

Deflection from the original BS?'

See 5.1.1 and 5.1.11

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.1.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  bugsy @6.1    3 months ago

So it's do as I say and not as I do then. Good information. Thanks for the precedent.

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.3  loki12  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.2    3 months ago

So you can open an article on cats,  spew bullshit about the democrats and delete any response that isn't about cats?   awesome!

[Actually, she can't.  If the seeder takes the conversation off topic, she can't later declare comments related to her off topic comments off-topic.  The door is then open to the topic the seeder introduces.] Sandy
 
 
 
bugsy
6.1.4  bugsy  replied to  loki12 @6.1.3    3 months ago
If the seeder takes the conversation off topic, she can't later declare comments related to her off topic comments off-topic.  The door is then open to the topic the seeder introduces.]

This is for moderator Sandy

Then why did you delete my 4.1.4 , Loki's 4.1.3 and Tessylo's 4.1.1? She changed the topic to dog poop, where I and Loki answered accordingly, with no disrespectful posts.

She asked if we check our dog's poop and we both stated that we did for health reasons.

She changed the topic, so answers should not be deleted, even though she later claimed the answers were off topic.

IMO, the entire thread, even Tessylo's post, should be reinstated.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.5  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  bugsy @6.1.4    3 months ago

Give me a fucking break.

You need to leave it alone now.  

Stop going off topic.

Isn't this all meta sandy?

 
 
 
bugsy
6.1.6  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.5    3 months ago

You do see I was defending you, right?

If it's labeled as meta, then so be it

I was asking a simple question.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7  Tacos!    3 months ago

People believe what the news media tells them to believe. Considering the way they freak out over everything Trump does - from foreign policy to the way he eats pizza - it's not surprising that a nation that can't even find Iran on a map thinks we are in more danger from them than before.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
7.1  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Tacos! @7    3 months ago
People believe what the news media tells them to believe.

Where are you obtaining your information?  Trump and his pallies personally keeping you in the loop, are they?

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @7.1    3 months ago
Where are you obtaining your information?

From the seat of my pants. Wanna feel?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.1    3 months ago

that was funny but you shouldn't tease Sister like that

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
7.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tacos! @7    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @7    3 months ago

So then Iran/Soleimani wasn't an imminent threat then.

Thank you tacos and others for admitting that.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.3.1  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @7.3    3 months ago

2302gj.jpg

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.3.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Tessylo @7.3    3 months ago
So then Iran/Soleimani wasn't an imminent threat then.

What exactly is an imminent threat?  Is that when people are bleeding out or is it simply the THREAT from a KNOWN TERRORIST?

 

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.3.3  Tacos!  replied to  XDm9mm @7.3.2    3 months ago

She's just upset because we killed that sweet old man who never did no harm to no one, and was only in Iraq to share his grandma's Koloocheh recipe.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.3.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @7.3.2    3 months ago

So then why did the 'president' and prick Pence say Soleimani and Iran were imminent threats?  

Moving the goalposts once again.  

Can't have it both ways.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.3.5  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @7.3.3    3 months ago

Nope, he was a bad actor.

How would you feel though if Soleimani/Iran had killed America's top general?

 
 
 
loki12
7.3.6  loki12  replied to  Tacos! @7.3.3    3 months ago

The DNC should insist we make this right with Iran, we killed their number 3 in line we should send them our number 3 in line. I'm sure the democrats can get behind this.

 
 
 
bugsy
7.3.7  bugsy  replied to  loki12 @7.3.6    3 months ago

Well, to be fair, our number 3 in line is Pelosi. I have no problem sending her, but more than likely, they don't want the old hag either.

 
 
 
loki12
7.3.8  loki12  replied to  bugsy @7.3.7    3 months ago
they don't want the old hag either.

What? how can this be, she is a master tactician! just ask the sheep in the MSM,  Sh has been holding the articles for a month in a brilliant tactical move where she has gained.......absolutely nothing but fuck over the Senators running for President. I'm sure they are going to love being stuck in the Senate missing any ability to campaign before the primaries. How fucking stupid can she be?  

 
 
 
GregTx
7.3.9  GregTx  replied to  loki12 @7.3.8    3 months ago

That question implies that you think there might be some limit....... that's just silly.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.3.10  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @7.3.5    3 months ago
How would you feel though if Soleimani/Iran had killed America's top general?

Is America's top general a terrorist?

 
 
 
bugsy
7.3.11  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @7.3.5    3 months ago
How would you feel though if Soleimani/Iran had killed America's top general?

Well, it depends...

Has America's top general been labeled a terrorist by international bodies?

Was America's top general responsible for hundred's of a country's troops where there is no active conflict?

Has America's top general responsible for thousands of innocent civilians in a country he is not from?

Was America's top general responsible for the death of a contractor from a country there is no active conflict with?

Was America's top general responsible for attacking an embassy in a country he is not from?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.3.12  XDm9mm  replied to  Tessylo @7.3.5    3 months ago
How would you feel though if Soleimani/Iran had killed America's top general?

That scumbag you're cheering for already killed, wounded, maimed and crippled enough Americans plus thousands more Iranians, Iraqis and others.

I'm extremely happy the mothrerfucker was vaporized and only wish it were so for more of them.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.3.13  XDm9mm  replied to  bugsy @7.3.7    3 months ago
I have no problem sending her, but more than likely, they don't want the old hag either.

They would declare that an act of war and retaliate with their full force.......  and rightly so.

 
 
 
Split Personality
8  Split Personality    3 months ago

I will be locking this at 6PM EST due to the seeders absence.

I she so chooses we can unlock it Monday when she returns.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

CB
igknorantzrulz
GregTx
Donald J. Trump Fan #1


26 visitors