Kamala would not change a thing.

[wing2000]

Killing their top military commander and hurting them economically probably inspired them

"Former President Donald Trump downplayed the injuries of troops who suffered traumatic brain injuries following missile strikes against a U.S. base at the end of his time in office, referring to them as “headaches” at a campaign event in Wisconsin on Tuesday.

Pentagon officials have said more than 100 U.S. troops were diagnosed with brain injuries following a missile attack at the Ain al-Asad base in Iraq in January 2020. The assault came in response to the American killing of Iranian Revolutionary Guard General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq a few days earlier."

On Tuesday, when asked by a reporter if he wished he had been tougher on Iran, given the severity of the injuries incurred in that attack, Trump downplayed the result.

“What does ‘injured’ mean?” he said. “You mean because they had a headache? Because the bombs never hit the fort…”


I prefer a Commander-n-Chief who doesn't downplay the injuries suffered by our military or consider them suckers or losers for serving.

Trump downplays troop brain injuries from Iran attack as ‘headaches’

“What does injured mean?” Trump said. “You mean because they had a headache?"

www.militarytimes.com

 

[BPPLEE]

"Former President Donald Trump downplayed the injuries of troops who suffered traumatic brain injuries following missile strikes against a U.S. base at the end of his time in office, referring to them as “headaches” at a campaign event in Wisconsin on Tuesday.

Pentagon officials have said more than 100 U.S. troops were diagnosed with brain injuries following a missile attack at the Ain al-Asad base in Iraq in January 2020. The assault came in response to the American killing of Iranian Revolutionary Guard General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq a few days earlier."

On Tuesday, when asked by a reporter if he wished he had been tougher on Iran, given the severity of the injuries incurred in that attack, Trump downplayed the result.

“What does ‘injured’ mean?” he said. “You mean because they had a headache? Because the bombs never hit the fort…”


I prefer a Commander-n-Chief who doesn't downplay the injuries suffered by our military or consider them suckers or losers for serving.

Trump downplays troop brain injuries from Iran attack as ‘headaches’

“What does injured mean?” Trump said. “You mean because they had a headache?"

www.militarytimes.com

If he had retaliated and things escalated you would criticize him for that.

 

[MrMoe]

So she's basically Biden 2.0.

 

[Always in His Presence]

....sounds like you want a war with Iran. You might get your wish if Netanyahu has his way....

Sounds more like I think it is absolutely insane that we can endure 150 acts of war with three response all met with further attacks.

Sounds more like I think we should do more to protect our troops.

Sounds more like Biden and Harris are weak

 

[wing2000]

If he had retaliated and things escalated you would criticize him for that.

He could simply acknowledge that soldiers suffered serious injuries.

 

[BPPLEE]

He could simply acknowledge that soldiers suffered serious injuries.

I agree. He says a lot of stupid things. He's his own worst enemy in that regard

 

[Yttrium]

So she's basically Biden 2.0.


View attachment 355889

Which is not Trump 1.0, so I can put up with that.

 

[KCfromNC]

So she's basically Biden 2.0.

Seems like right wing messaging is still fumbling around trying to find some way to make sure all of the effort putting into demonizing Biden isn't wasted.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Which is not Trump 1.0, so I can put up with that.

And that is the sum total of reasoning for voting Harris, isn't it?

It can't possibly because she is qualified, nor has done anything noteworthy as VP - a person who received less than 1% of votes before she dropped her candidacy - because no one wanted her - a person who was appointed to the office of VP - a person who was the lowest rated - a person who was appointed to the candidate position because they did not want to loose 94 million in funds.

But - she is not Trump

 

[A2SG]

- a person who was appointed to the office of VP -

Sorry, but only two people were appointed to the office of Vice President: Gerald Ford and, when he became President, Nelson Rockefeller.

Everyone else was elected to the office, either by coming in second place, back in the earliest days of the nation, or as the President's running mate.

Kamala Harris became VP in the normal way.

-- A2SG, the only unusual thing was the way she became the Democratic party's nominee....

 

[probinson]

I read we has a nuclear arms agreement with Iran under Obama, negated by Trump

Due to Trump's action, now Iran is surging forward unchecked.

Haven't Biden and Harris been in office for nearly four years? Why haven't they negotiated a new agreement with Iran?

 

[Yttrium]

And that is the sum total of reasoning for voting Harris, isn't it?

Pretty much, yeah. I was hoping for a reasonable Republican candidate (and I voted for one in the primaries), but I didn't get one.

It can't possibly because she is qualified, nor has done anything noteworthy as VP

Her being well-qualified for prez is just gravy this time around. As for being noteworthy as a VP... haha, as if that was ever a thing.

 

[KCfromNC]

And that is the sum total of reasoning for voting Harris, isn't it?

No, but the fact it comes up so frequently shows that maybe the GOP made a mistake nominating a historically unpopular one-term ex-president.

 

[BPPLEE]

No, but the fact it comes up so frequently shows that maybe the GOP made a mistake nominating a historically unpopular one-term ex-president.

Yes, they did but he's currently in a virtual tie with the best candidate the Democrats had to offer

 

[ozso]

And that is the sum total of reasoning for voting Harris, isn't it?

It can't possibly because she is qualified, nor has done anything noteworthy as VP - a person who received less than 1% of votes before she dropped her candidacy - because no one wanted her - a person who was appointed to the office of VP - a person who was the lowest rated - a person who was appointed to the candidate position because they did not want to loose 94 million in funds.

But - she is not Trump

Lots of people would vote for a house plant to be the next president because it's not Trump.

 

[ozso]

No, but the fact it comes up so frequently shows that maybe the GOP made a mistake nominating a historically unpopular one-term ex-president.

Historically unpopular with the increasingly radical left. Which is a major selling point to many.

 

[BPPLEE]

Historically unpopular with the increasingly radical left. Which is a major selling point to many.

x.com

x.com

 

[wing2000]

Haven't Biden and Harris been in office for nearly four years? Why haven't they negotiated a new agreement with Iran?

...of course you could say the same thing for every President since 1979.....

 

[probinson]

...of course you could say the same thing for every President since 1979.....

Perhaps, but I was just responding to the delusion that the reason we currently have issues with Iran is because of Trump.

 

[probinson]

For example, by Trump asking his followers in Congress to sink a bipartisan bill.

Serious question: If Trump really has that much power to "sink" bipartisan bills now, why should we think that Harris will be able to pass bills with Trump lurking around on the outside if she's elected? I mean, the way Democrats talk, they must believe Trump has this incredibly ability to thwart bills. Won't that continue to be an issue if Harris is elected?