ewsieg

I didn't ask you to do anything. I am not arguing about the numbers at all. My point that I choose your post as a catalyst was because you claim that as a military organization they are only expected to report military deaths. I'm fine with that. But wanted to point out there are high level members of Netanyahu's government that claims there are no civilians, it's only Hamas fighters and Hamas supporters. I see no reason why Netanyahu can't give the world an answer on if that means he's planning on ridding all Palestinians/Hamas from Gaza. If that answer is yes, then I do have an issue with the numbers, because he should be including the 'Hamas supporters' aka civilians, in those numbers. If so, he should also be informed the US has stopped all aid to Israel.

That is part of the problem here. The objective we hear is to completely rid out Hamas. History should point out how unrealistic that is. I mean 20 years of war and maybe Hamas will be gone and there will be a new name to deal with so I guess you got that. The bigger issue with the objective is who defines Hamas. Many folks in Netanyahu's part have publicly said Palestinians voted in Hamas, hence they are all Hamas. If you don't really care about civilian casualties because you feel they are kind of just like Hamas, then report their deaths as well. You can't have it both ways.

There is nothing illegal with the GOP spending all their cash on the POTUS election. There is part of me that wants to see it, to drain the rest of the GOP and keep them completely high and dry after Trump dies. But there is part of me that doesn't want Trump have any more cash/ability to run his own campaign.

I suspect the thought was let's hide him far away. Hope folks ignore him and if so, he's free to rot forever. If folks keep bringing him up, then we just bite the bullet and deal with the fallout and hope it blows over quick.

Disappointing, but probably the correct thing to say at this time.

Damned if you don't, damned if you do. Ukraine was pissed that Starlink wasn't allowing it's use in occupied Ukraine. They apparently open it up and now it's painted like it's Starlink's fault because Russia has taken advantage of it.

I'm disappointed in a lot more folks than just Kraft, but if they are willing to come out now against Trump, i'll gladly accept them for this fight. After Trump loses, then kick him back out.

In Trumps view, you're probably right, but if the plan is to try and get Trump to win, I'd think the very last thing you'd want to bring up is age and mental ability and get people thinking about that as he's not going to fair too well either.

So you're saying he should have left that out, which means if he was ethical and not a MAGA he would have simply said "President Biden illegally possessed and shared classified information with an unauthorized source, no charges can be filed as he's a sitting president, the end."

If Hur really is an ultra MAGA, and he believes Biden broke the law, why wouldn't he just recommend charges and force Garland to cover it up, take the political heat that he will not follow through on the recommendation, or say you think he should be charged (but can't as a sitting president)? Instead he's not going to charge him, which allows all of his followers to say he's exonerated and for independents it allows the reinforcement that you can choose between a man with multiple indictments against him or zero. Instead, Hur's big mastermind plot it to say he doesn't recommend charges and goes further saying that would hold up even if he was allowed to charge him (sitting president), but figures a "slanderous" line like 'sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory' will be all that is needed to destroy his presidency?

You initially claimed that Hur should STFU. Once presented with evidence that it was released at the direction of the DOJ it switched to "well, I meant how it was presented by Hur was wrong". You can argue the wording all you want, but giving the reasons not to recommend indicting someone, after showing that you know they broke the law, is absolutely a requirement by a prosecutor in this type of report.

In response to everyone else that I argued were defense of Biden, none of you are wrong, well, except Pfife of course. Trump did do it worse on the documents, Trump is a worse human being, and a much worse president than Biden. But I do want standards to apply to everyone. If Trump having classified documents risked clandestine sources and put lives at risk, why not speak about Biden in the same light and with the same gravity of the situation?

I said that there is no evidence that he has sold these documents. Due to the fact he's a horrible boss, people flip on him all the time and thus why we know so many unethical and illegal things he does. Yet there have been no rumors that he's ever sold them, simply that if he could, he would. What we also know is he likes to keep "trophies" from what he thinks shows him in good light as well. As for Biden, it's clear he wanted these documents to help him craft how he was going to defend his Afghanistan position in a book he was looking to sell. In this lone variable, all I'm saying is there appear to be facts that Biden did something that most of you accuse Trump of doing without facts.

This thread has been defending him and is so quick to compare to Trump in order compare it against something worse. Several seem to believe it's a complete exoneration. The report indicates that he knowingly had classified information outside of a secure location and didn't turn it in until someone realized they needed to come clean and turn it in after he was president again. That is illegal. Based on this forum, it potentially put American lives at risk, both here and abroad. If you notice, it looks like the weekend democratic talking heads are looking to spin it that he wanted to carefully and correctly document his *correct* stance on Afghanistan so it would be properly documented. Not that he wanted to make money on a book. Some defenders below..... .....Call the report into question .....Redirect to Trump ....well he had a lot going on that day This may be a legitimate defense, that said I don't have any problem with any republican that feels he blames things on this too much. I don't remember him having trouble talking with he was VP and he does have a history of lying about his past (he was at ground zero, he was at that philly synogue the day of the shooting, he got arrested trying to meet Nelson Mandela, he graduated top half of his class (what a weird flex). All that said, a stutter can get worse with age. ....claim that reports aren't supposed to be public without any knowledge on the subject in order to throw the evidence out of the case. ....again....but Trump ....again...but Trump

Step 1 - Deflection

I'm not trying to say Biden is as bad as Trump on this, but anyone that defends Biden on this needs to go and read this report.

I don't think they are right, but I do understand them. Frank Turner is coming into town and it led me to listening to his new stuff and some of his old stuff last night. In one song he has a line something like 'you can't fix anything if all you have is a hammer'. Tearing down is easy, and even sometimes fun....rebuilding though.....

We also know Trump likes to boast of things 'he has'. We also know there have been tons of folks that cooperated with officials and gave their accounts, many of which have been shared here, which indicate he knew he had them and boasted of them to others, in one account showing a map to people but telling them not to get too close because they shouldn't see the details of it. As of now, there are zero reports indicating he sold them. I agree with you, he probably would have if the price is right, but again, zero reports he sold them. Meanwhile, the report on Biden is that he knowingly kept them and knowingly shared information from them to the Ghostwriter in an attempt to make money from the sale of a book. Rather it made it to the final copy of the book or not, has no bearing on the situation. This report indicates Biden did something that you can only accuse of Trump doing because 'it sounds like something he'd do'.

Report on the Investigation Into Unauthorized Removal, Retention, and Disclosure of Classified Documents Discovered at Locatinos Including the Penn Biden Center and the Delaware Private Residence of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (justice.gov) I guess the blame should be on Biden for disclosing this, maybe he forgot to tell Garland it shouldn't be released. If you were all in on Trump should be brought up on charges (and should be found guilty) for the Mar-a-lago documents case, I don't see how you don't think Biden should be in the same boat here. This might be the first case that Biden is worse than Trump here. The facts we now know is that Trump had documents he knew about and kept. We have no evidence he sold secrets, but he apparently bragged about having them for clout. Biden had documents he knew about and kept. The difference for Biden is he wanted them to make money off of them to help him document his book with his ghostwriter. This isn't changing my vote, i'm still voting for any D on the ballot....but please, you folks claim you're the adults in the room, you can't find someone else in your party for me to vote for?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/ag-special-counsel-finished-probe-bidens-handling-classified/story?id=107004130#:~:text=Garland said that Hur had,Counsel's report public as possible.” Based on this, it appears Garland expected to publicly release it and i've heard no push back from anyone on this report not coming from the Justice Department.

I haven't read it and regardless of how it reads I'm sure people will be taking it out of context, but if it's a special investigator giving a report to a prosecutor, I'd absolutely expect this. Once a prosecutor decides to charge someone, it's no longer about right or wrong, it's about winning. They aren't going to try a case that they don't think they can win, even if they feel they have facts on their side. That would definitely come into a discussion about advising on a decision.

In the little I was able to listen towards the end, if Jackson sides with Colorado, she made them earn it. She seemed particularly tough on their argument.

In no way am I looking to defend either parent and I'm not upset with this ruling. But even as one of the lone conservative voices on this forum, I recognize many good intentioned laws/rulings don't always work out the best for the most impoverished. To note, I don't think they illegally supplied a gun for him. They purchased it for him and did not intend on him having access to it without their involvement. I don't think that is illegal. Granted they were reckless in more ways than just being reckless with gun access and suspect all of that came into play with the decision.

Trump generally has the ability to just flip on whatever he wants and the MAGA crowd just goes with it. I really think he messed up politically here on immigration. 1) This immigration bill isn't even that great, it's not like it was a compromise, senate republicans got almost everything they asked for. 2) High profile house republicans are pissed. Immigration was in their minds a big factor for their re-election bids, either as an achievement or as a issue that they can claim they'd deal with. Now at best for them, hopefully it's an issue that folks ignore, the same folks they've been riling up to care about it so much. 3) Biden appears to be looking to take advantage of it and not just let it sit as an unforced error. Regardless if the House GOP ignores it or buckles and passes it, Biden (if ignored) could actually have it as part of his platform, taking it away from republicans to campaign on, or Biden (if passed) touts it as bi-partisan work that he got to the finish line. I'm not sure which one would help him more with voters, but I feel like Trump (once again) put the GOP in a no win situation. I don't think he's realized yet he put himself in that position too.

I agree with you the most on everything I've seen in this thread for the past few hours. This portion somewhat surprised me though. I would actually think it would be a liberal person that would be concerned about this setting a precedent and being used for gun crimes relating to black youth.