High ranking CIA officer endorses Clinton ... (Huge blow to Trump)

[Deleted member 196663]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/0...ia-now-im-endorsing-hillary-clinton.html?_r=1

I Ran the C.I.A. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton.










Wow. High ranking intelligence officer totally destroys Trumps credibility as a potential Commander-in-Chief and sees it pretty much exactly as I do: there is no way this guy can represent us internationally.

I knew he fucked up when he said, "my training as an intelligence officer taught me to call it as I see it." That would indicate he's got a long list of shit to talk about regarding Hillary, since he "calls it like he sees it". Another meaningless endorsement.

Dear thread Starter. Putting (Huge blow to Trump) in your title stinks of weak, ignorant political commentary and everyone knows you are pulling that shit completely out of your ass, or someone else's ass.

 

[lfd0311]

I recall UBL saying that, which was odd to me as an American: we were going after them, no matter who was POTUS. When that group of shitlords did that, Afghanistan was absolutely going to get wrecked.
I feel like maybe our "good pals" in Pakistan should've gotten some too.
They certainly weren't a good ally and couldn't be trusted.

I pretty much agree with your assessment of how things unfolded militarily. AQ's future was bleak after 9/11.
I'm not sorry any terrorist was tortured. I shed no tears for those bastards.

wasn't that suprised, honestly. We really haven't actually kicked the snot out of anyone since WWII. We lost in Vietnam. We lost in Somalia. We're the largest, most powerful military in the world and run by simpering weenies. People see that. They aren't afraid of it, and haven't been for a long time. Bush was trying to change that impression, let people know that we'll still step across the planet and slap some sandal wearing goof in the mouth if we feel it's neccessary to.

 

[ehtheist]

You ever see people who tend to be way nicer than you posting with yellow cards and wonder "how the hell have I not been yellow carded yet?"

 

[ehtheist]

You ever see people who tend to be way nicer than you posting with yellow cards and wonder "how the hell have I not been yellow carded yet?"

 

[Deleted member 196663]

wasn't that suprised, honestly. We really haven't actually kicked the snot out of anyone since WWII. We lost in Vietnam. We lost in Somalia. We're the largest, most powerful military in the world and run by simpering weenies. People see that. They aren't afraid of it, and haven't been for a long time. Bush was trying to change that impression, let people know that we'll still step across the planet and slap some sandal wearing goof in the mouth if we feel it's neccessary to.

I'm sure if badasses like you were in charge we would have won in Vietnam and not left until we did.

 

[lfd0311]

I'm sure if badasses like you were in charge we would have won in Vietnam and not left until we did.

LOL, how you took that from what I said is beyond me. You seem to have a habit of misunderstanding things like this constantly. I can't tell if that's just how you troll or if you just can't read. I'm sure I'll figure it out eventually.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

Every hit piece I see on Trump lately reminds me of Dorothy clicking her heels together say there's no place like home.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

LOL, how you took that from what I said is beyond me. You seem to have a habit of misunderstanding things like this constantly. I can't tell if that's just how you troll or if you just can't read. I'm sure I'll figure it out eventually.

You need to reread your own shit then.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

Pointing out that this dude writes for Politico is a "Pro Trump" post ad hominem attack?

Ad hominem: an argument or reaction directed against a person rather than the position he/she is maintaining.

So, yes. It doesn't contain any substance on the actual arguments the author was making.

This was your first response in the thread:

LOL, so the single most Liberal Deputy Director of the CIA, The dude who lost any and all credibility he had by buying in alongside Hillary and company with the whole "Benghazi Talking Points" fiasco is baking Hillary? Gee, excuse me while I pass that off as the meaningless drivel it is...

It contained multiple ad hominems and was completely devoid of arguments refuting the author's contention that Trump is unfit for the POTUS. By your statement above, the CIA director could of made a statement of "The current President of the US is Barack Obama and the sky is blue", and you would accord it as 'meaningless drivel' solely on the basis of the identity of the person making the statement and not the actual statement itself. Try actually attacking the merits of another person's argument before launching into an ad hominem orgy.

 

[lfd0311]

You need to reread your own shit then.

I stated facts. We got beat in Vietnam without losing a battle. Two days after a battle in which we lost 18 men while killing or wounding between 3-5 thousand, and after months of bold pronouncements by our President about "getting" Aidid, he ordered all offensive action in Somalia to end and for us to begin plans to withdraw by the end of March. You do stuff like that around people straight out of the stone age, who've never taken "International Relations 101" and you do nothing but look weak and encourage further attack.

 

[DespicablePeep]

People are desperate to slain Trump, lol if CIA wants Hillary more the reason to choose Trump.

 

[VivaRevolution]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/0...ia-now-im-endorsing-hillary-clinton.html?_r=1

I Ran the C.I.A. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton.










Wow. High ranking intelligence officer totally destroys Trumps credibility as a potential Commander-in-Chief and sees it pretty much exactly as I do: there is no way this guy can represent us internationally.

LOL, yeah this is a huge blow to anyone that doesn't know our alphabet agencies are rouge agencies under almost zero oversight.

Next you will tell me banksters and the media support Hillary..............

 

[Deleted member 196663]

I stated facts. We got beat in Vietnam without losing a battle. Two days after a battle in which we lost 18 men while killing or wounding between 3-5 thousand, and after months of bold pronouncements by our President about "getting" Aidid, he ordered all offensive action in Somalia to end and for us to begin plans to withdraw by the end of March. You do stuff like that around people straight out of the stone age, who've never taken "International Relations 101" and you do nothing but look weak and encourage further attack.

Yeah, exactly. And I said that if we had badasses like you were in charge we would have won in Vietnam and not left until we did.

 

[WhiskeyPunch]

Yeah, I am no big Trump fan either. I just know for a fact Hillary is in bed with these globalist banking cartels that stir the pot around the world so they can get more weapons contracts and engineer regions of control.

fair enough.

i dont see why trump would be bad for the military industrial complex though. i mean, hes going to wipe out isis in mere hours apparently.

 

[lfd0311]

Ad hominem: an argument or reaction directed against a person rather than the position he/she is maintaining.

So, yes. It doesn't contain any substance on the actual arguments the author was making.

This was your first response in the thread:




It contained multiple ad hominems and was completely devoid of arguments refuting the author's contention that Trump is unfit for the POTUS. By your statement above, the CIA director could of made a statement of "The current President of the US is Barack Obama and the sky is blue", and you would accord it as 'meaningless drivel' solely on the basis of the identity of the person making the statement and not the actual statement itself. Try actually attacking the merits of another person's argument before launching into an ad hominem orgy.

I know what Ad Hominem means. What I did was site facts. This guy was fully vested in the Talking Points fiasco. You don't even know who the f**k he is, do you? Do you remember Susan Rice? He is the guy that she met with before all of that. That isn't "ad hominem". That's fact. His reputation is directly tied to Benghazi and Hillary. So shocker he has bad things to say about Trump

 

[lfd0311]

Yeah, exactly. And I said that if we had badasses like you were in charge we would have won in Vietnam and not left until we did.

So quoting history somehow sluffed me into the "do you even lift, bro?!?!" meathead category? I can see this is going places...

 

[Deleted member 196663]

So quoting history somehow sluffed me into the "do you even lift, bro?!?!" meathead category? I can see this is going places...

You were quoting history? I thought you were giving commentary on history. I didn't realize they were the same things.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

wasn't that suprised, honestly. We really haven't actually kicked the snot out of anyone since WWII. We lost in Vietnam. We lost in Somalia. We're the largest, most powerful military in the world and run by simpering weenies. People see that. They aren't afraid of it, and haven't been for a long time. Bush was trying to change that impression, let people know that we'll still step across the planet and slap some sandal wearing goof in the mouth if we feel it's neccessary to.

LOL
It's good by me if we're picking the right targets.
Terrorist camps, meetings. Drone strike them into Bolivian.

 

[lfd0311]

You were quoting history? I thought you were giving commentary on history. I didn't realize they were the same things.

So yes, you're just here to troll. It's much clearer now.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

I know what Ad Hominem means.

You obviously do not. It's evident because you continuously attempt to rebut the author's arguments by attacking his character and motives rather than actual substance of the arguments themselves.

While not necessarily always fallacious on its face, your stated position that you wouldn't believe a single thing he says and would sweepingly dismiss it as "meaningless driver" is indicative that your ad hominem attack isn't remotely compelling. Even if it was compelling, it is still the EXACT definition of an ad hominem attack. Acquaint yourself with a dictionary before you claim to know what an ad hominem is.

..........(expects upcoming ad hominems on Merriam&Webster)