International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Continuation Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness' say psychiatry experts at Yale... Pt 3 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341507)

Craig4 16th September 2021 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13601464)
...which is why I said it was good for you. It is fortunate that it is your position.

Your concerns are an easy, casual sacrifice.

BobTheCoward 16th September 2021 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig4 (Post 13601474)
Your concerns are an easy, casual sacrifice.

I'm not concerned. I'm happy for a fellow forum poster.

Craig4 16th September 2021 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13601479)
I'm not concerned. I'm happy for a fellow forum poster.

If you weren't happy, it would be the same thing.

Ziggurat 16th September 2021 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13600564)
So having a lunatic as president start World War 3 is just jim dandy with you?

There was never any risk that Trump was going to start WW3. That was a paranoid delusion from the start. Trump was less inclined to initiate military action than any president since Carter.

Delvo 16th September 2021 09:40 PM

It's true that, although Trump is obviously completely bonkers, he's not that particular kind of bonkers.

But it's also still sensible to take precautions in case his symptoms shift anyway. Any kind of bonkers is close enough to warrant never being trusted with any weapon more powerful than a watergun.

The Great Zaganza 16th September 2021 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13601577)
There was never any risk that Trump was going to start WW3. That was a paranoid delusion from the start. Trump was less inclined to initiate military action than any president since Carter.

no evidence for that.
Trump just didn't see any profit in it.
During the Campaign, he called for seizing oil fields and other resources with military force.
And he had no qualms about dropping MOABs or assassinating foreign leaders.

Trump was not the moderating factor; neither was Pompeo

Craig4 16th September 2021 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13601577)
There was never any risk that Trump was going to start WW3. That was a paranoid delusion from the start. Trump was less inclined to initiate military action than any president since Carter.

I only hear that message from Trump supporters. Americans knowledgeable of the events tell a different story.

Stacyhs 16th September 2021 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13601577)
There was never any risk that Trump was going to start WW3. That was a paranoid delusion from the start. Trump was less inclined to initiate military action than any president since Carter.

His previous behavior normally would support that and would be a point in his favor except (isn't there always an "except" with Trump?) he was increasingly showing erratic, manic, and delusional behavior. If there's one thing we know about Trump, it's that he'll do anything to stay in power including inciting an insurrection and turning on anyone who dares offend him. He's a hateful, spiteful, vengeful man with the emotional maturity of a little boy.

Bob001 16th September 2021 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13601577)
There was never any risk that Trump was going to start WW3. That was a paranoid delusion from the start. Trump was less inclined to initiate military action than any president since Carter.

And yet the people who actually worked next to him, observed him up close, and listened to the words from his own mouth reached different conclusions.

W.D.Clinger 17th September 2021 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13601577)
There was never any risk that Trump was going to start WW3. That was a paranoid delusion from the start. Trump was less inclined to initiate military action than any president since Carter.


sunmaster14, whose views of Trump often aligned with Ziggurat's (although sunmaster14 was often more willing to attempt to support his views with evidence and argument), wrote the following on 20 August 2016. With my highlighting:
Quote:

Originally Posted by sunmaster14
In general, though, I think Trump is crazy enough to do things that no other President has the balls to do. That could turn out badly, or it could turn out really well. I have confidence though that our institutions can protect us from the downside, even as they can't restrain the upside.

Just to give an example, I think that Trump has the highest probability of any Presidential candidate to say "Screw it; we're getting rid of most of the drug laws." That would be a good thing in my opinion. He probably also has the highest probability of any Presidential candidate to say "Screw it; I'm nuking Mexico." That would be a bad thing in my opinion, but I don't think he'll be able to do that.

So Ziggurat has, in effect, accused sunmaster14 of harboring a paranoid delusion.

A few days later, sunmaster14 expressed his faith that "guys with guns, i.e. the Secret Service", would protect us against the possibility that Trump would be "willing to use nuclear weapons indiscriminately", which sunmaster14 described as 'a rather strong indication of being so mentally unbalanced as to be "unable to discharge the power and duties ..." of the Presidency.'

Some may not remember sunmaster14. He remains a member of this forum even though he hasn't posted since his announced flounce on 30 October 2017, under circumstances that caused some to wonder whether he was leaving to avoid paying off on a $100 bet.

Ziggurat 17th September 2021 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger (Post 13601788)
So Ziggurat has, in effect, accused sunmaster14 of harboring a paranoid delusion.

OK. And?

Ziggurat 17th September 2021 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13601620)
And yet the people who actually worked next to him, observed him up close, and listened to the words from his own mouth reached different conclusions.

"The" people?

Well, no. Most people working next to Trump did not reach the conclusion that Trump might start nuclear war. I don't think even Milley actually reached the conclusion that Trump might start nuclear war. I have seen no reporting that he has publicly claimed to have reached such a conclusion. Have you?

Or are you just trying to read between the lines? Because it's very easy to be misled doing that.

carlitos 17th September 2021 07:13 AM

Most sane people working next to Trump were replaced by delusional sycophants, so that throws off the math a bit.

Crossbow 17th September 2021 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13601577)
There was never any risk that Trump was going to start WW3. That was a paranoid delusion from the start. Trump was less inclined to initiate military action than any president since Carter.

Sorry, but I am not so sure about that.

After all, there were several times when Trump himself disparaged various military alliances and threatened military action as well as threating captives with torture.

Also, there were the January 6 Capitol insurrection which Trump started.

And, there is the more recent case where General Milley was so concerned about Trump launching an attack on China in October 2020 in order to get additional votes in November 2020 that Miley was poised to personally intervene to stop such an attack.

Ziggurat 17th September 2021 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crossbow (Post 13601810)
And, there is the more recent case where General Milley was so concerned about Trump launching an attack on China in October 2020 in order to get additional votes in November 2020 that Miley was poised to personally intervene to stop such an attack.

Was he?

Milley himself has made no such claim. The Woodward book apparently implies as much, but it also implies he violated the law by issuing commands, which he's not allowed to do.

I'm currently inclined to think the Woodward book exaggerated whatever actually went down, that there's actually less there than meets the eye.

W.D.Clinger 17th September 2021 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13601801)
Quote:

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger (Post 13601788)
So Ziggurat has, in effect, accused sunmaster14 of harboring a paranoid delusion.

OK. And?


And, as sunmaster14 went on to observe:
Quote:

Originally Posted by sunmaster14
Ultimately, the guys with guns will have to make a decision. I have confidence that a crazy President would be restrained. The federal bureaucracy, of which the guys with guns are a part, is very entrenched and very stable. Actually, I think a President Trump will find that federal bureaucracy extremely frustrating because he'll realize the President doesn't have quite as much power as most people think.


As sunmaster14 predicted, a crazy President was restrained—not often enough, of course, and just barely even when restrained. sunmaster14 deserves credit for foreseeing the possibility that we'd end up having to rely on "guys with guns", such as the Capitol Police and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Ziggurat can argue that sunmaster14 was paranoid and/or delusional, but the fact remains that sunmaster14 recognized and addressed the possibility that "Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness'" (the topic of this thread) even before Trump was elected. sunmaster14 was entirely too optimistic concerning the ease with which Trump's worst impulses and outright craziness would be restrained, but sunmaster14 was not so delusional as to accuse others (who recognized the danger) of being delusional.

Lurch 17th September 2021 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13601817)
Was he?

Milley himself has made no such claim. The Woodward book apparently implies as much, but it also implies he violated the law by issuing commands, which he's not allowed to do.

I'm currently inclined to think the Woodward book exaggerated whatever actually went down, that there's actually less there than meets the eye.

If Woodward is writing fiction, the principals involved will be issuing refutations. Or does your conspiracy spread so wide...?

Ziggurat 17th September 2021 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch (Post 13601891)
If Woodward is writing fiction, the principals involved will be issuing refutations.

I think we are seeing that already. The claim that Milley promised to warn China if we were going to attack has already been denied, and instead it's now being said that Milley only pointed out that China would be able to tell if we were going to attack (ie, they would see our buildup). There is a common message between these versions (namely that China wouldn't be surprised by a US attack), but the difference is still quite significant.

And this wouldn't exactly be the first time that Woodward wasn't totally honest or accurate in his reporting.

Bob001 17th September 2021 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13601803)
"The" people?

Well, no. Most people working next to Trump did not reach the conclusion that Trump might start nuclear war. I don't think even Milley actually reached the conclusion that Trump might start nuclear war. I have seen no reporting that he has publicly claimed to have reached such a conclusion. Have you?

Or are you just trying to read between the lines? Because it's very easy to be misled doing that.

Of course Milley hasn't made any such public statements. But if, as widely reported, he assembled senior commanders to remind them of nuclear protocols and to insist that he be "involved" in any decision, that sure implies that he thought Trump could violate such protocols.

Woodward also reports that CIA Director Gina Haspel doubted Trump's sanity and feared a coup.
https://news.yahoo.com/then-cia-dire...192920026.html

The issue is not whether Trump would start a nuclear war; we have to hope that he would be restrained at least by the knowledge that he and his family live on this planet, too. The issue is that Trump had the power and authority to launch a war on his own whim; that's what officials moved to prevent.

Ziggurat 17th September 2021 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13602020)
Of course Milley hasn't made any such public statements. But if, as widely reported, he assembled senior commanders to remind them of nuclear protocols and to insist that he be "involved" in any decision, that sure implies that he thought Trump could violate such protocols.

I disagree. According to those same reports, it was prompted by press reports about the topic, which suggests it was not prompted by anything Trump said or did, which implies that he didn't expect Trump to violate such protocols.

Quote:

Woodward also reports that CIA Director Gina Haspel doubted Trump's sanity and feared a coup.
I don't have any confidence in Woodward's reporting. If Haspel actually thought that, then she's an idiot.

Quote:

The issue is not whether Trump would start a nuclear war; we have to hope that he would be restrained at least by the knowledge that he and his family live on this planet, too. The issue is that Trump had the power and authority to launch a war on his own whim; that's what officials moved to prevent.
That seems like a significant backpedal to me compared to the claim that there was a risk Trump might start a nuclear war with China.

Stacyhs 17th September 2021 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
If Woodward is writing fiction, the principals involved will be issuing refutations.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13601913)
I think we are seeing that already. The claim that Milley promised to warn China if we were going to attack has already been denied, and instead it's now being said that Milley only pointed out that China would be able to tell if we were going to attack (ie, they would see our buildup). There is a common message between these versions (namely that China wouldn't be surprised by a US attack), but the difference is still quite significant.

"I" said that earlier in this thread and I was wrong about Milley not saying that but I also said the rest of what he said was left out by the critics. But "I" am not "a principle involved" as Lurch stated. You are implying this "is being claimed" by others than just me.

Who has claimed what the highlighted sentence says from any
"principles involved" with the phone calls?
No one that I've seen.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13601913)
And this wouldn't exactly be the first time that Woodward wasn't totally honest or accurate in his reporting.

You've claimed this before and I asked you for examples earlier which you've never provided, along with never answering my other two question:
You:
Quote:

But if this was accurate, then frankly, it doesn't make Trump look nearly as bad as it makes Milley look. Which makes me wonder if maybe people are setting up Milley to take a fall. That might be convenient right about now.
Me:
Quote:

Have you seen Gen. Milley denying this? Any of those involved? No? Why do you think that is?

Why do you think anyone needs to set Milley up to 'take the fall'? Fall for what exactly?

Incidentally, how has Woodward "not always been accurate in his reporting"?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post13600204

Hlafordlaes 17th September 2021 12:07 PM

Anyone who did not doubt Trump's sanity after his comments about Covid and bleach, etc, must doubt his IQ and ability to grasp simple facts, and conclude the same about his remaining supporters/followers. "Hey, let's swallow a UV bulb and shoot up horse tranqs!" :rolleyes:

Much of a warmonger he is not, however, have to grant that; more of a cut-and-run sissy (ask the Kurds).

The case on the wacko credentials of Trump et el has been closed, archived and gathering dust for some time, now.

Bob001 17th September 2021 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13602026)
.....
I don't have any confidence in Woodward's reporting. If Haspel actually thought that, then she's an idiot.
....

And the reason for that would be ...? Woodward's been doing this for 50 years. He records his interviews, even with Trump. It is exceedingly rare for someone named in his reporting to claim "that never happened."

Skeptic Ginger 17th September 2021 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13601577)
There was never any risk that Trump was going to start WW3. That was a paranoid delusion from the start. Trump was less inclined to initiate military action than any president since Carter.

As if you know the mind of Dump. :rolleyes:

He's seriously mentally ill. It's one thing to be sure whatever he does/says will be about him and only him. He most certainly was looking for a way to declare martial law. I too think sending nukes off was an extremely remote possibility. But to say "never any risk" when the guys in the room thought otherwise is a confidence step too far.

There would be no going back had Dump done something that stupid. And we have seen for 4 years Dump is no stranger to doing some really stupid things.

Stacyhs 17th September 2021 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13602026)
I disagree. According to those same reports, it was prompted by press reports about the topic, which suggests it was not prompted by anything Trump said or did, which implies that he didn't expect Trump to violate such protocols.

False. The meeting on Jan. 8 was prompted by Trump's actions post-election and on Jan. 6 and Milley's concern about Trump's mental instability:

Quote:

But Milley’s concerns pushed him to do more than just calm Li. According to the book, Milley even called a meeting of senior officers to go over the formal procedures for launching nuclear weapons. While the president has the authority to give the order, Milley reminded the officers that he himself needed to be involved. “No matter what you’re told, you do the procedure. You do the process,” he said. “And I’m part of that procedure. You’ve got to make sure that the right people are on the net.”

In fact, Milley was so worried about a nuclear attack, he looked each of the officers in the eye and asked them to indicate their agreement, which Milley took as each swearing an “oath.”

The authors also referenced a transcript of a phone call between Milley and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, during which Milley told the speaker he agreed with her that Trump’s mental status was unstable.

“What I’m saying to you is that if they couldn’t even stop him from an assault on the Capitol, who even knows what else he may do?” Pelosi said. “And is there anybody in charge at the White House who was doing anything but kissing his fat butt all over this?”

Pelosi added, “You know he’s crazy. He’s been crazy for a long time.”

“Madam Speaker,” Milley said, “I agree with you on everything.”

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-book-1226119/



Quote:

I don't have any confidence in Woodward's reporting. If Haspel actually thought that, then she's an idiot.
Why not? You've yet to give any evidence that supports that opinion.

Why would Haspel be an 'idiot' to believe that when what she was seeing was an attempt by Trump and his sycophants in Congress not to certify the election with claims that it had been "stolen" and "rigged"? When he was calling directly for Mike Pence to not certify the election. Why was she an 'idiot' when we know that Trump, Giuliani, Brooks, et al incited an insurrection on Jan 6? IMO, you'd have to be an idiot NOT to worry about a right wing coup.


Quote:

That seems like a significant backpedal to me compared to the claim that there was a risk Trump might start a nuclear war with China.
Well, it would be if any of the principles involved were actually doing that.

Ziggurat 17th September 2021 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13602071)
False.

You are confused about which version of events are being referred to. That wasn't the version I was referring to.

Quote:

Why would Haspel be an 'idiot' to believe that when what she was seeing was an attempt by Trump and his sycophants in Congress not to certify the election with claims that it had been "stolen" and "rigged"?
Because that wasn't a coup, and it wasn't an attempted coup. Words have meaning.

The Great Zaganza 17th September 2021 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13602083)
You are confused about which version of events are being referred to. That wasn't the version I was referring to.



Because that wasn't a coup, and it wasn't an attempted coup. Words have meaning.

And everyone actually present at the event disagrees with you.
How come you know so much more than them?

Ziggurat 17th September 2021 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13602069)
As if you know the mind of Dump. :rolleyes:

He's seriously mentally ill.

You don't even notice the irony of your own post.

In a sense, you're right. Neither of us know the mind of Trump. But we do know his actions. And my statement is supported by his actions, yours isn't. Nothing about what he actually did in office indicates that he was interested in initiating military conflict. And that is in contrast to EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT since Carter. Every one of them started a war. Trump didn't.

Quote:

He most certainly was looking for a way to declare martial law.
Nothing about that is certain. You pulled that out of your ass, with nothing to support it.

Quote:

I too think sending nukes off was an extremely remote possibility. But to say "never any risk" when the guys in the room thought otherwise is a confidence step too far.
Woodward wasn't in the room. Milley was, but we only have unreliable 2nd hand accounts of what he said. Milley has never said anything publicly to suggest he actually thought it was a risk.

Ziggurat 17th September 2021 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13602092)
And everyone actually present at the event disagrees with you.

Says who? Woodward? No, even Woodward doesn't claim that. He suggests Milley did, but Milley wasn't the only one present, and Woodward himself wasn't. And Milley isn't making that claim publicly, so there's no confirmation that Woodward is right about what Milley supposedly said. So on what basis do you make that claim?

Quote:

How come you know so much more than them?
Who is "them"? Woodward? I may not know more than Woodward, but I don't trust him, and I don't know why you do. And again, nobody else involved is making any such claims publicly.

Skeptic Ginger 17th September 2021 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13602094)
You don't even notice the irony of your own post.

Maybe because there isn't any.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13602094)
In a sense, you're right. Neither of us know the mind of Trump. But we do know his actions. And my statement is supported by his actions, yours isn't. Nothing about what he actually did in office indicates that he was interested in initiating military conflict. And that is in contrast to EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT since Carter. Every one of them started a war. Trump didn't.

Nothing about that is certain. You pulled that out of your ass, with nothing to support it.

Oh Puhleese. :rolleyes:

CNN: Trump's talk of martial law sends White House staffers rushing to the press


Quote:

Woodward wasn't in the room. Milley was, but we only have unreliable 2nd hand accounts of what he said. Milley has never said anything publicly to suggest he actually thought it was a risk.
It wasn't just Woodward, the WA Po reporter also wrote the book. Woodward has a better reputation for telling the truth than Dump does.

Stacyhs 17th September 2021 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13602083)
You are confused about which version of events are being referred to. That wasn't the version I was referring to.

Then what version of events are being referred to? From this exchange, my post referred exactly to the event being referred to: the Jan. 8th meeting about protocols.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13602020)
Of course Milley hasn't made any such public statements. But if, as widely reported, he assembled senior commanders to remind them of nuclear protocols and to insist that he be "involved" in any decision, that sure implies that he thought Trump could violate such protocols.

Woodward also reports that CIA Director Gina Haspel doubted Trump's sanity and feared a coup.
https://news.yahoo.com/then-cia-dire...192920026.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13602026)
I disagree. According to those same reports, it was prompted by press reports about the topic, which suggests it was not prompted by anything Trump said or did, which implies that he didn't expect Trump to violate such protocols.




Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13602083)
Because that wasn't a coup, and it wasn't an attempted coup. Words have meaning.

Yes, it was an attempted coup. They wanted to overthrow the elected government (Biden) by stopping the certification and re-instate Trump. You can play word games all you want but it won't wash.

W.D.Clinger 17th September 2021 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13602083)
You are confused about which version of events are being referred to. That wasn't the version I was referring to.



Because that wasn't a coup, and it wasn't an attempted coup. Words have meaning.

Stachyhs is confused about the meanings of the words "principle" and "principal", but is not confused about the events—although it is entirely possible Ziggurat, channeling Kellyanne Conway, is saying "version of events" when he/she means "alternative events".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13602121)


The link cited by Skeptic Ginger takes us to a news story dated 20 December 2020, which says:
Quote:

Trump dismissed reports of the martial law discussion as 'fake news' in a tweet Sunday, but two people familiar with the matter told CNN that the the plan was argued in the Oval Office Friday -- although it remains unclear if Trump endorsed the idea.

Nevertheless, even the mention of martial law may fan the flames of many supporters clinging to the belief the election result was fraudulent. That could incite violence to bring the idea into fruition.

"In the conspiratorial conservative base of supporting Trump, there are calls for using the Insurrection Act to declare martial law," said Elizabeth Neumann, former assistant secretary of Homeland Security under President Trump and adviser at Defending Democracy Together, on CNN's "Reliable Sources."

"When they hear that the president is actually considering this, there are violent extremist groups that look at this as a dog whistle, an excuse to go out and create ... violence," she said.
Fortunately, Trump's conspiratorial conservative base was smart enough to ignore that dog whistle, as we saw on 6 January 2021.

carlitos 17th September 2021 02:08 PM

Members of his base were learning to pronounce Myanmar and asking Michael Flynn about it, but hey, they didn't want a military coup.

Stacyhs 17th September 2021 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
As if you know the mind of Dump.

He's seriously mentally ill.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13602094)
You don't even notice the irony of your own post.

In a sense, you're right. Neither of us know the mind of Trump.

LOL! Many, many mental health experts, including his own psychologist niece, have studied him and agree he is an extreme narcissist and sociopath. His delusional behavior claiming the election was rigged and stolen and his refusal to accept his defeat is not NORMAL. Do not even attempt to tell us there is no evidence or basis for saying "He's seriously mentally ill."


Quote:

But we do know his actions. And my statement is supported by his actions, yours isn't. Nothing about what he actually did in office indicates that he was interested in initiating military conflict. And that is in contrast to EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT since Carter. Every one of them started a war. Trump didn't.
Yes, we do know his actions which have become increasingly erratic, bizarre, and delusional. If you can't see that then you are being willfully blind. And he has most certainly expressed more than an interest in initiating military action

Trump on military action when he was campaigning:

Quote:

“You take away their (ISIS’s) wealth, that you go and knock the hell out of the oil, take back the oil,” Trump said this weekend on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
During his first 100 days in office:

Quote:

Yemen: Trump authorized a botched special operations raid in late January that left a Navy SEAL and several civilians dead.4 His administration also discreetly escalated the American air campaign against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in early March.5 In addition, Secretary Mattis has requested authorization to give greater military assistance to the Saudi-led coalition fighting Houthi rebels in Yemen.6
Syria: Trump ordered a cruise missile strike against an Assad-regime airfield in retaliation for the regime’s April 4 sarin nerve agent attack on civilians. The week before the sarin attack and American retaliation, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley both stated that the United States no longer sought Assad’s removal from power, sending a mixed signal at best.7
Somalia: Trump eased Obama-era restrictions on the use of force in Somalia, giving military commanders more freedom of action against the Al Qaeda-affiliated al-Shabab terrorist group.8 Dozens of American soldiers have since deployed to Somalia on a mission to train and equip the Somali National Army.9
North Korea: In response to Pyongyang’s continued development of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, the Trump administration has threatened to use force against North Korea, either to pre-empt or retaliate for a missile or nuclear weapons test. Vice President Mike Pence, for instance, proclaimed that the “era of strategic patience is over” during a recent trip to South Korea, while after North Korea’s early April missile test, Secretary Tillerson declared, “The United States has spoken enough about North Korea.”10

On August 30:

Quote:

ALL EQUIPMENT should be demanded to be immediately returned to the United States, and that includes every penny of the $85 billion dollars in cost," Trump said in a statement.

"If it is not handed back, we should either go in with unequivocal Military force and get it, or at least bomb the hell out of it.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13602094)
Quote:

Quote:
He most certainly was looking for a way to declare martial law.
Nothing about that is certain. You pulled that out of your ass, with nothing to support it.

On the other hand:

Quote:

The allegation follows a story first reported by the New York Times on Dec 19. here that President Trump had “asked” about the possibility of imposing “martial law to ‘rerun’ the election” during an Oval Office meeting, an idea previously referred to by former national security adviser Michael Flynn during an interview with conservative cable news channel Newsmax on Dec. 17 ( here: https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1...661789696?s=20 )
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-f...-idUSKBN28X2HE


Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13602094)
Woodward wasn't in the room. Milley was, but we only have unreliable 2nd hand accounts of what he said. Milley has never said anything publicly to suggest he actually thought it was a risk.

Why are they "unreliable" 2nd hand accounts? You keep claiming Woodward is not reliable but you keep failing to produce any evidence of this after being requested to do so.

The transcript of Milley's phone conversation with Pelosi shows he thought Trump was "crazy". None of the people in the rooms of any of the phone calls or the Jan. 8 protocol meeting have refuted what Woodward and Costa wrote. Neither has Milley.

Stacyhs 17th September 2021 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13602097)
Says who? Woodward? No, even Woodward doesn't claim that. He suggests Milley did, but Milley wasn't the only one present, and Woodward himself wasn't. And Milley isn't making that claim publicly, so there's no confirmation that Woodward is right about what Milley supposedly said. So on what basis do you make that claim?



Who is "them"? Woodward? I may not know more than Woodward, but I don't trust him, and I don't know why you do. And again, nobody else involved is making any such claims publicly.

You keep saying that but never give your basis for doing so even when asked.
Why do 'I' trust Woodward? Because his work has a well earned reputation for being well re-searched, well sourced, and credible. He tapes all his interviews to be sure he gets things accurately.

If someone or events is being reported/quoted/presented unfairly or incorrectly, they would come out publicly and say so. No one has, including those who were there.

mgidm86 17th September 2021 02:28 PM

Coup

Quote:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...p%20d'état

: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics
especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group

Quote:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/coup-d-etat

a sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force.

Quote:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/coup-detat

Coup d’état, also called coup, the sudden, violent overthrow of an existing government by a small group.

Quote:

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionari...n/english/coup

a sudden change of government that is illegal and often violent
Some definitions require a "head of state" to be involved. Trump was involved, and others also encouraged these people as the event unfolded.

State Senator Josh Hawley gave his approval directly to the crowd with a fist in the air and later called for Biden to resign. It is alleged (at minimum) that other GOPers helped the rioters (Boebert for one).

Just because Trump's attempted coup was a failure doesn't mean it wasn't one. Thankfully for us, Trump only does things half-assed (at best).

I'm sure if it were Obama these same people totally would not consider it a coup! :rolleyes:

Ziggurat 17th September 2021 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13602196)
You keep saying that but never give your basis for doing so even when asked.
Why do 'I' trust Woodward? Because his work has a well earned reputation for being well re-searched, well sourced, and credible. He tapes all his interviews to be sure he gets things accurately.

Except he doesn't, as the controversy over Woodward's claimed deathbed confession of William Casey shows.

Stacyhs 17th September 2021 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger (Post 13602168)
Stachyhs is confused about the meanings of the words "principle" and "principal", but is not confused about the events—although it is entirely possible Ziggurat, channeling Kellyanne Conway, is saying "version of events" when he/she means "alternative events".
.

No, I am not. I used "principle" correctly and not "principal". That was Lurch.http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post13601891

carlitos 17th September 2021 02:38 PM

At your link, Lurch correctly called the people in the room "principals." "Principles" can't issue refutations, because they are abstract concepts, not people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch
If Woodward is writing fiction, the principals involved will be issuing refutations.

As for allegations about Trump's mental health from those around him ... I was reminded of these tidbits recently - from his communications directors, Secretary of State, etc.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...50abcb4b02.jpg

Working with Trump is “like trying to figure out what a child wants”
—White House deputy chief of staff Katie Walsh

“The White House has become an adult day care center”
—Republican senator Bob Corker of Tennessee

“Morally unfit to be president,” “unethical” and “untethered to truth”
—former FBI director James Comey, who also compared the US president to a mafia boss.

“Less a person than a collection of terrible traits”
—Trump’s former chief economic adviser Gary Cohn.

“Someone who “sucks up and ***** down”
—former Fox News chief and confidant Roger Ailes.

Ziggurat 17th September 2021 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13602191)
The transcript of Milley's phone conversation with Pelosi shows he thought Trump was "crazy". None of the people in the rooms of any of the phone calls or the Jan. 8 protocol meeting have refuted what Woodward and Costa wrote. Neither has Milley.

But he's unwilling to back it up either. Why not?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.