Joe Biden is crushing it.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Pudding Brains is actually bragging about the exit from Afghanistan? Wow. By all accounts a complete cluster fuck, but sure, buddy, you did great. Now GTFO and let the adults handle government. SMDH.

You think we should still be there?

No, but we could have exited a HELL of a lot better than we did, that's obvious to anyone who doesn't have pudding for brains.

Joe Biden is a great American and I'd be disappointed if he didn't drive republicans/libertarians absolutely insane.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

You think we should still be there?

No, but we could have exited a HELL of a lot better than we did, that's obvious to anyone who doesn't have pudding for brains.

The manner of our exit was dictated by Trump closing all the US bases and turning them over to the Taliban, leaving only one base, which was a pinch point, to withdrawal the remaining 2500 troops.  Trump also released all the Taliban fighters from prison, guaranteeing greater chaos in the country. If Biden had tried to insert more troops and reopen bases for a more secure exit he would have been breaking the agreement Trump made with the Taliban and the Taliban would have attacked US troops.

Trump & Biden were both right in their determination to exit the country, but Trump's lack of a plan was total incompetence.  When Biden came into office, 4 months before the Trump plan said our troops were leaving, with no plan as to execution, Biden didn't have many options to use.  Blame for the chaos of the exit mostly goes to Trump, Biden was just the last man standing when the music stopped.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

No, but we could have exited a HELL of a lot better than we did, that's obvious to anyone who doesn't have pudding for brains.

The manner of our exit was dictated by Trump closing all the US bases and turning them over to the Taliban, leaving only one base, which was a pinch point, to withdrawal the remaining 2500 troops.  Trump also released all the Taliban fighters from prison, guaranteeing greater chaos in the country. If Biden had tried to insert more troops and reopen bases for a more secure exit he would have been breaking the agreement Trump made with the Taliban and the Taliban would have attacked US troops.

Trump & Biden were both right in their determination to exit the country, but Trump's lack of a plan was total incompetence.  When Biden came into office, 4 months before the Trump plan said our troops were leaving, with no plan as to execution, Biden didn't have many options to use.  Blame for the chaos of the exit mostly goes to Trump, Biden was just the last man standing when the music stopped.

No.

Biden's hand was on the steering wheel. If he felt like we didn't have a solid exit plan, he should have put the brakes on until we could come up with one. What he did was practically criminal incompetence.

Your excuse is that Pudding Brains decided just to follow Trump's plan? That's not killing it.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

The manner of our exit was dictated by Trump closing all the US bases and turning them over to the Taliban, leaving only one base, which was a pinch point, to withdrawal the remaining 2500 troops.  Trump also released all the Taliban fighters from prison, guaranteeing greater chaos in the country.  If Biden had tried to insert more troops and reopen bases for a more secure exit he would have been breaking the agreement Trump made with the Taliban and the Taliban would have attacked US troops.

Trump & Biden were both right in their determination to exit the country, but Trump's lack of a plan was total incompetence.  When Biden came into office, 4 months before the Trump plan said our troops were leaving, with no plan as to execution, Biden didn't have many options to use.  Blame for the chaos of the exit mostly goes to Trump, Biden was just the last man standing when the music stopped.

No.  

Biden's hand was on the steering wheel.  If he felt like we didn't have a solid exit plan, he should have put the brakes on until we could come up with one.  What he did was practically criminal incompetence.  

Your excuse is that Pudding Brains decided just to follow Trump's plan?  That's not killing it.  

You're getting to be as bad as others on this board with myopic vision.

The United States is not defined on the world stage by who the President is, that is a POV promoted by Trump but until Trump our foreign policy was bipartisan and followed by both parties.  

Biden, unlike Trump, is old school and honors the agreements the United States has made.

Trump negotiated directly with the Taliban and reached an agreement with them, not involving the government of Afghanistan, a withdrawal date & a withdrawal agreement which included the Taliban not attacking USA forces.  As part of that he freed all the Talban captives and virtually insured the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan when the remaining US troops, 2500, left.

Biden delayed the withdrawal by a few months to give more time for an orderly withdrawal.  No one expected the government of Afghanistan to fail as the US troops withdrew, but the Talban had control of the country and was just waiting on the outskirts of the capital for the US to leave.

In that process a splinter group, trying to make trouble, executed a suicide bombing which killed the 13 US troops and many others.

Furthermore, Trump hadn't planned on taking any Afghanistan's who work with the US out, so that part of the operation wasn't well planned, and we got the "last days of the war" panic by those being left behind, again.

The military command failed Biden, and yes through them Biden failed the country.

However, given the US military's history of failing at withdrawals this was going to be a cluster because the US military sucks at this type of withdrawal.

Biden (and Trump) did the right action, leaving Afghanistan. He was fighting against the US military commanders, who never wants to leave anywhere, and therefore always FUBAR it.

Bush did the wrong thing by invading, but he did it to be reelected so there is that.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

No.  

Biden's hand was on the steering wheel.  If he felt like we didn't have a solid exit plan, he should have put the brakes on until we could come up with one.  What he did was practically criminal incompetence.  

Your excuse is that Pudding Brains decided just to follow Trump's plan?  That's not killing it.  

You're getting to be as bad as others on this board with myopic vision.

The United States is not defined on the world stage by who the President is, that is a POV promoted by Trump but until Trump our foreign policy was bipartisan and followed by both parties.  

Biden, unlike Trump, is old school and honors the agreements the United States has made.

Trump negotiated directly with the Taliban and reached an agreement with them, not involving the government of Afghanistan, a withdrawal date & a withdrawal agreement which included the Taliban not attacking USA forces.  As part of that he freed all the Talban captives and virtually insured the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan when the remaining US troops, 2500, left.

Biden delayed the withdrawal by a few months to give more time for an orderly withdrawal.  No one expected the government of Afghanistan to fail as the US troops withdrew, but the Talban had control of the country and was just waiting on the outskirts of the capital for the US to leave.

In that process a splinter group, trying to make trouble, executed a suicide bombing which killed the 13 US troops and many others.

Furthermore, Trump hadn't planned on taking any Afghanistan's who work with the US out, so that part of the operation wasn't well planned, and we got the "last days of the war" panic by those being left behind, again.

The military command failed Biden, and yes through them Biden failed the country.

However, given the US military's history of failing at withdrawals this was going to be a cluster because the US military sucks at this type of withdrawal.

Biden (and Trump) did the right action, leaving Afghanistan. He was fighting against the US military commanders, who never wants to leave anywhere, and therefore always FUBAR it.

Bush did the wrong thing by invading, but he did it to be reelected so there is that.

you're not trying to have a logical conversation with a republican/libertarian are you?

(I mean, I admire your optimism.. I really do. I just gave up on the 'grab 'em by the pussy' demographic a long time ago).

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

You're getting to be as bad as others on this board with myopic vision.

The United States is not defined on the world stage by who the President is, that is a POV promoted by Trump but until Trump our foreign policy was bipartisan and followed by both parties.  

Biden, unlike Trump, is old school and honors the agreements the United States has made.

Trump negotiated directly with the Taliban and reached an agreement with them, not involving the government of Afghanistan, a withdrawal date & a withdrawal agreement which included the Taliban not attacking USA forces.  As part of that he freed all the Talban captives and virtually insured the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan when the remaining US troops, 2500, left.

Biden delayed the withdrawal by a few months to give more time for an orderly withdrawal.  No one expected the government of Afghanistan to fail as the US troops withdrew, but the Talban had control of the country and was just waiting on the outskirts of the capital for the US to leave.

In that process a splinter group, trying to make trouble, executed a suicide bombing which killed the 13 US troops and many others.

Furthermore, Trump hadn't planned on taking any Afghanistan's who work with the US out, so that part of the operation wasn't well planned, and we got the "last days of the war" panic by those being left behind, again.

The military command failed Biden, and yes through them Biden failed the country.

However, given the US military's history of failing at withdrawals this was going to be a cluster because the US military sucks at this type of withdrawal.

Biden (and Trump) did the right action, leaving Afghanistan. He was fighting against the US military commanders, who never wants to leave anywhere, and therefore always FUBAR it.

Bush did the wrong thing by invading, but he did it to be reelected so there is that.

you're not trying to have a logical conversation with a republican/libertarian are you?

(I mean, I admire your optimism.. I really do. I just gave up on the 'grab 'em by the pussy' demographic a long time ago).

I stop taking TM seriously when he starts using things like "Pudding Brains" for a President who is thousands of times more accomplished & smarter than TM is.  That is just his frustration at being so wrong as a Libertarian.

However, I will use his posts as a foil to defend what Biden (& Trump) did, if what they did was the right thing, in this case leaving a hopeless situation.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
you're not trying to have a logical conversation with a republican/libertarian are you?

(I mean, I admire your optimism.. I really do. I just gave up on the 'grab 'em by the pussy' demographic a long time ago).

I stop taking TM seriously when he starts using things like "Pudding Brains" for a President who is thousands of times more accomplished & smarter than TM is.  That is just his frustration at being so wrong as a Libertarian.

However, I will use his posts as a foil to defend what Biden (& Trump) did, if what they did was the right thing, in this case leaving a hopeless situation.

you're a great American and I appreciate you for standing up for decency in the face of republicans/libertarians and their christian hero.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

No.  

Biden's hand was on the steering wheel.  If he felt like we didn't have a solid exit plan, he should have put the brakes on until we could come up with one.  What he did was practically criminal incompetence.  

Your excuse is that Pudding Brains decided just to follow Trump's plan?  That's not killing it.  

You're getting to be as bad as others on this board with myopic vision.

The United States is not defined on the world stage by who the President is, that is a POV promoted by Trump but until Trump our foreign policy was bipartisan and followed by both parties.  

Biden, unlike Trump, is old school and honors the agreements the United States has made.

Trump negotiated directly with the Taliban and reached an agreement with them, not involving the government of Afghanistan, a withdrawal date & a withdrawal agreement which included the Taliban not attacking USA forces.  As part of that he freed all the Talban captives and virtually insured the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan when the remaining US troops, 2500, left.

Biden delayed the withdrawal by a few months to give more time for an orderly withdrawal.  No one expected the government of Afghanistan to fail as the US troops withdrew, but the Talban had control of the country and was just waiting on the outskirts of the capital for the US to leave.

In that process a splinter group, trying to make trouble, executed a suicide bombing which killed the 13 US troops and many others.

Furthermore, Trump hadn't planned on taking any Afghanistan's who work with the US out, so that part of the operation wasn't well planned, and we got the "last days of the war" panic by those being left behind, again.

The military command failed Biden, and yes through them Biden failed the country.

However, given the US military's history of failing at withdrawals this was going to be a cluster because the US military sucks at this type of withdrawal.

Biden (and Trump) did the right action, leaving Afghanistan. He was fighting against the US military commanders, who never wants to leave anywhere, and therefore always FUBAR it.

Bush did the wrong thing by invading, but he did it to be reelected so there is that.

So if you were handed over a project at work, that the previous person had completely fucked up, would you raise some red flags and try to fix it, or would you try to "honor" the previous agreements?

You know damn well that Biden did a horrible job with the withdrawl in Afghanistan.  Refusing to admit that makes you look a fool.

Biden did the right thing the wrong way. Just because it was the right thing doesn't mean he didn't massively fuck it up.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

You're getting to be as bad as others on this board with myopic vision.

The United States is not defined on the world stage by who the President is, that is a POV promoted by Trump but until Trump our foreign policy was bipartisan and followed by both parties.  

Biden, unlike Trump, is old school and honors the agreements the United States has made.

Trump negotiated directly with the Taliban and reached an agreement with them, not involving the government of Afghanistan, a withdrawal date & a withdrawal agreement which included the Taliban not attacking USA forces.  As part of that he freed all the Talban captives and virtually insured the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan when the remaining US troops, 2500, left.

Biden delayed the withdrawal by a few months to give more time for an orderly withdrawal.  No one expected the government of Afghanistan to fail as the US troops withdrew, but the Talban had control of the country and was just waiting on the outskirts of the capital for the US to leave.

In that process a splinter group, trying to make trouble, executed a suicide bombing which killed the 13 US troops and many others.

Furthermore, Trump hadn't planned on taking any Afghanistan's who work with the US out, so that part of the operation wasn't well planned, and we got the "last days of the war" panic by those being left behind, again.

The military command failed Biden, and yes through them Biden failed the country.

However, given the US military's history of failing at withdrawals this was going to be a cluster because the US military sucks at this type of withdrawal.

Biden (and Trump) did the right action, leaving Afghanistan. He was fighting against the US military commanders, who never wants to leave anywhere, and therefore always FUBAR it.

Bush did the wrong thing by invading, but he did it to be reelected so there is that.

So if you were handed over a project at work, that the previous person had completely fucked up, would you raise some red flags and try to fix it, or would you try to "honor" the previous agreements?

You know damn well that Biden did a horrible job with the withdrawl in Afghanistan.  Refusing to admit that makes you look a fool.

Biden did the right thing the wrong way. Just because it was the right thing doesn't mean he didn't massively fuck it up.

Been there, did that, and had to explain that the contracts signed tied my hands.

[tw]1840488882405614037[/tw]

So other than a huge increase in prices (creating those high profits & stock market highs) everything is great.

While he is right on the numbers the 80% have plenty to bitch about.

I of course don't pin this on Biden, if Trump didn't fuck up the response to the pandemic starting on day one of his term much of this wouldn't have come about.

Trapper Gus wrote:[tw]1840488882405614037[/tw]

So other than a huge increase in prices (creating those high profits & stock market highs) everything is great.

While he is right on the numbers the 80% have plenty to bitch about.

I of course don't pin this on Biden, if Trump didn't fuck up the response to the pandemic starting on day one of his term much of this wouldn't have come about.

And thanks to the assholes on the Democratic messaging team, every person without any link to stock market thinks we are in a deep recession and believe prices doubled because of something vaguely related to what Biden did. (& it was better under Trump.) This is why Michigan is so close.

While I am sympathetic to your frustrations my concept of how people make choices suggest to me that the underlying support for Trump is the one he, as a master salesman, which he is, has latched onto like a bloodsucker.

Namely the subconscious, and sometimes conscious racism inherent in a sigificate number of people.

All the talk about the economy is papering over the real feelings that some people have about race, and in my opinion, on how people make choices more subconsciously than by logical weighing of options.

Trapper Gus wrote:While I am sympathetic to your frustrations my concept of how people make choices suggest to me that the underlying support for Trump is the one he, as a master salesman, which he is, has latched onto like a bloodsucker.

Namely the subconscious, and sometimes conscious racism inherent in a sigificate number of people.

All the talk about the economy is papering over the real feelings that some people have about race, and in my opinion, on how people make choices more subconsciously than by logical weighing of options.

If you complain about the economy you're a racist???

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:While I am sympathetic to your frustrations my concept of how people make choices suggest to me that the underlying support for Trump is the one he, as a master salesman, which he is, has latched onto like a bloodsucker.

Namely the subconscious, and sometimes conscious racism inherent in a sigificate number of people.

All the talk about the economy is papering over the real feelings that some people have about race, and in my opinion, on how people make choices more subconsciously than by logical weighing of options.

If you complain about the economy you're a racist???

People voting for Trump are not doing it because of the economy, that is a fig leaf which is covering up why the are voting for Trump and yes, for many of them it is racism.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

If you complain about the economy you're a racist???

People voting for Trump are not doing it because of the economy, that is a fig leaf which is covering up why the are voting for Trump and yes, for many of them it is racism.

Oh, OK.

So why are Millennials - who strongly support Harris - bitching about the economy then?

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

People voting for Trump are not doing it because of the economy, that is a fig leaf which is covering up why the are voting for Trump and yes, for many of them it is racism.

Oh, OK.

So why are Millennials - who strongly support Harris - bitching about the economy then?

Mostly about housing prices which are too high due to big money and price fixing. Would love for you to back up your bullshit with links.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Oh, OK.

So why are Millennials - who strongly support Harris - bitching about the economy then?

Mostly about housing prices which are too high due to big money and price fixing. Would love for you to back up your bullshit with links.

What bullshit? I'm just asking questions.

We really need Biden to crush it one more time and get a port worker deal in place.  If they shut down the ports for more than a week, that's going to be a freaking disaster.  Really bad for the auto industry.  So many of these carlines use at least some imported European parts that will have huge problems and even just 1 being late or missing can take down an entire line.  The Asian parts I think are OK since most of those come in on the west coast.  

But this stuff is a lesson to corporate America - if you raise prices in a way that is not justified by inflation data (seemingly most companies) and your profits skyrocket, you will bE the reason for most of the inflation and your critical workers will need more to live and will shut your ass down if you don't significantly share your profits.

Again though I can't help but think this is a political maneuver from the folks in high places in our global supply chain.  All accounts are that the group negotiating with the union is making very little effort and any chaos right now helps DonOLD

Expecting Biden to let the strike go on for a week then strong arm both sides to the table.

Expecting Biden to let the strike go on for a week then strong arm both sides to the table.

God i hope not.  I'm responsible for coordinating our customer response to this shit.  My life is going to suck.  In the beginning i think it's just mainly logging who's checking in and making sure our canned message gets out but if it's longer who tf knows.  between what we have in stock and what our customers have in stock, there's probably at least a month or two of stock but it's basically just kicking the can down the road.  Instead of next week lines going down it may be a month or two from now with all the port congestion this is likely to cause and slow restock.  So many auto companies rely on what is essentially "just in time" manufacturing in an attempt to cut down on stock they have to manage (and thus cost) so they are uber reliant on a continuous flow of stock.  Any disruption and suddenly they are crying about lines going down.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Cameron wrote:I figured that's what you were getting at.

Biden Biding your time during an ongoing genocide is not laudable. Setting that aside, it is unclear how much of the pressure on Netanyahu is due to any actions on the part of Joe Biden. The current ceasefire proposal was not put forth by the Biden administration, it was supposedly an Israeli proposal, and the pressure seems to be coming from other Israelis. Unless I missed it, the Biden administration hasn't really changed its posture regarding withholding aid or red lines in Rafah.

Also important to note that nothing has actually been achieved yet, so it's a bit premature for champagne.

I agree with your last sentence, but events are moving in the right direction.

I find people who just want Biden to do something drastic to be really stupid, to be blunt, as that is not how politics works, even for Trump, and Joe is really good at politics.

As for what Biden has been doing, I guess you really just are not paying attention.

For months he has been wining & dining, so to speak, all the leaders in the Israel government who might oppose Netanyahu with the goal of using them to change Israel's policies.  There have been press announcements, which have created minor "splashes" but of course not the huge splash you want.  All the work Joe has been doing is starting to pay off.  Joe has created within the Israel government a counter movement to Netanyahu, in order to achieve what you want, and end to the slaughter in Gaza.

Will it work, well let's hope it does.

So far, the signs are positive.

You posted this on June 5th. Still feeling like the signs are positive? Joe still crushing it in the middle east?

Cameron wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:


I agree with your last sentence, but events are moving in the right direction.

I find people who just want Biden to do something drastic to be really stupid, to be blunt, as that is not how politics works, even for Trump, and Joe is really good at politics.

As for what Biden has been doing, I guess you really just are not paying attention.

For months he has been wining & dining, so to speak, all the leaders in the Israel government who might oppose Netanyahu with the goal of using them to change Israel's policies.  There have been press announcements, which have created minor "splashes" but of course not the huge splash you want.  All the work Joe has been doing is starting to pay off.  Joe has created within the Israel government a counter movement to Netanyahu, in order to achieve what you want, and end to the slaughter in Gaza.

Will it work, well let's hope it does.

So far, the signs are positive.

You posted this on June 5th. Still feeling like the signs are positive? Joe still crushing it in the middle east?

I have said, since then it is true, that I am uncertain of what the United States national interest is in this ongoing conflict between Israel & Iran. (No point IMO of hiding who is fighting over there behind the fig leaves of Hamas & Hezbollah)...

I feel that, secretly, the US National Interests may be the destruction of as much of Hezbollah & Hamas as possible.

I am certain that the Biden lead US government is pursuing what it's analysis tells it is the best course of action to support the US National Interests.

What I am uncertain of, personally, which is the only paradigm people on this board seem to think in, as to if the US interests include the destruction of Hezbollah & Hamas.

The election politics between gaining the votes of those emotionally horrified by the propaganda being pushed by various actors to their own purposes, clicks for the MSM, as a weapon of war by Iran & its fellow travelers, verses the not insignificant Israel lobby in this country, complicated the public response by Biden et al, which drives all of your comments on this, but which are just noise as compared to the national interests of the United States.

So the signs are positive, or no?

Cameron wrote:So the signs are positive, or no?

Iran is staying out in name, so that is positive.

Iran already did this, does anyone on here pay attention.  The US will use all of its naval anti-missile missile tech like we did last time.

This is Iran's way of saying stop killing our generals.

Trapper: "At least Iran is staying out of it."

Also Trapper: "Iran is already involved, why doesn't anyone pay attention?"

Can't have it both ways.

Cameron wrote:Trapper: "At least Iran is staying out of it."

Also Trapper: "Iran is already involved, why doesn't anyone pay attention?"

Can't have it both ways.

If Iran can have it both ways then I can post about it.

What does that even mean?

Cameron wrote:What does that even mean?

Iran pretends that Hezbollah & Hamas are not part of their military, but then treats them as though they were.

Thus, the latest Iranian retaliatory strike on Israel for the killing of the Hezbollah leader.

BTW I would say that Biden has had about a 30% success rate on keeping this war from exploding.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Cameron wrote:What does that even mean?

Iran pretends that Hezbollah & Hamas are not part of their military, but then treats them as though they were.

Thus, the latest Iranian retaliatory strike on Israel for the killing of the Hezbollah leader.

BTW I would say that Biden has had about a 30% success rate on keeping this war from exploding.

So when you said:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Cameron wrote:So the signs are positive, or no?

Iran is staying out in name, so that is positive.

What the fuck were you talking about?

Cameron wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Iran pretends that Hezbollah & Hamas are not part of their military, but then treats them as though they were.

Thus, the latest Iranian retaliatory strike on Israel for the killing of the Hezbollah leader.

BTW I would say that Biden has had about a 30% success rate on keeping this war from exploding.

So when you said:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Iran is staying out in name, so that is positive.

What the fuck were you talking about?

Until today's strike, which was after my post, Iran had retaliated for an alleged killing on Iranian soil, a strike on an Iranian Embassy, which counts as native soil under international law, which had some justification.

Today changed the game, as Iran is now claiming the attack today was because of Israels attacks on Hezbollah.

Cameron wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Iran pretends that Hezbollah & Hamas are not part of their military, but then treats them as though they were.

Thus, the latest Iranian retaliatory strike on Israel for the killing of the Hezbollah leader.

BTW I would say that Biden has had about a 30% success rate on keeping this war from exploding.

So when you said:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Iran is staying out in name, so that is positive.

What the fuck were you talking about?

hey dipstick, he got you there. you didn't understand what he was saying at all.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Cameron wrote:

So when you said:


What the fuck were you talking about?

hey dipstick, he got you there.  you didn't understand what he was saying at all.

He said Iran was staying out while headlines all over the place were "Iran missile attack imminent." He got nobody, he was posting untrue shit in real time and failing to correct himself, thereby confusing the issue. But thanks for following along.

Cameron wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

hey dipstick, he got you there.  you didn't understand what he was saying at all.

He said Iran was staying out while headlines all over the place were "Iran missile attack imminent." He got nobody, he was posting untrue shit in real time and failing to correct himself, thereby confusing the issue. But thanks for following along.

Again, you misunderstood.  I can't help you if you can't follow along in at least a minimal way. Iran is and has been attacking Israel, for years. This attack is not a new thing.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Cameron wrote:

He said Iran was staying out while headlines all over the place were "Iran missile attack imminent." He got nobody, he was posting untrue shit in real time and failing to correct himself, thereby confusing the issue. But thanks for following along.

Again, you misunderstood.  I can't help you if you can't follow along in at least a minimal way.  Iran is and has been attacking Israel, for years.  This attack is not a new thing.

Trapper asserted that Iran was not getting involved, and also that they were. Those are mutually exclusive statements. No amount of nuance, context, or spin can make them not be mutually exclusive.

He first said they were staying out in name, which I take to mean direct, non-proxy involvement. He made this statement as headlines were already indicating missile launches were imminent. When I pointed this out, he himself noted that Iran had already launched missiles at Israel in a previous retaliation, directly contradicting his previous statement (but I guess in his mind somehow cancelling out?). Then he said something non-sensical about how he can have it both ways. I then pointed out that his first statement in the exchange was nonsense, he posted something non-sensical about the earlier missiles Iran launched not counting as Iran getting involved, and then you felt the need to chime in in an apparent attempt to prove to everyone that you are even dumber than Trapper, and now here we are.

So I'm following along just fine.

Cameron wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Again, you misunderstood.  I can't help you if you can't follow along in at least a minimal way.  Iran is and has been attacking Israel, for years.  This attack is not a new thing.

Trapper asserted that Iran was not getting involved, and also that they were. Those are mutually exclusive statements. No amount of nuance, context, or spin can make them not be mutually exclusive.

He first said they were staying out in name, which I take to mean direct, non-proxy involvement. He made this statement as headlines were already indicating missile launches were imminent. When I pointed this out, he himself noted that Iran had already launched missiles at Israel in a previous retaliation, directly contradicting his previous statement (but I guess in his mind somehow cancelling out?). Then he said something non-sensical about how he can have it both ways. I then pointed out that his first statement in the exchange was nonsense, he posted something non-sensical about the earlier missiles Iran launched not counting as Iran getting involved, and then you felt the need to chime in in an apparent attempt to prove to everyone that you are even dumber than Trapper, and now here we are.

So I'm following along just fine.

At different points in time.  In your world MSU Football is the National Champion right now because they were at one time.

Cameron wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Again, you misunderstood.  I can't help you if you can't follow along in at least a minimal way.  Iran is and has been attacking Israel, for years.  This attack is not a new thing.

Trapper asserted that Iran was not getting involved, and also that they were. Those are mutually exclusive statements. No amount of nuance, context, or spin can make them not be mutually exclusive.

He first said they were staying out in name, which I take to mean direct, non-proxy involvement. He made this statement as headlines were already indicating missile launches were imminent. When I pointed this out, he himself noted that Iran had already launched missiles at Israel in a previous retaliation, directly contradicting his previous statement (but I guess in his mind somehow cancelling out?). Then he said something non-sensical about how he can have it both ways. I then pointed out that his first statement in the exchange was nonsense, he posted something non-sensical about the earlier missiles Iran launched not counting as Iran getting involved, and then you felt the need to chime in in an apparent attempt to prove to everyone that you are even dumber than Trapper, and now here we are.

So I'm following along just fine.

That's literally the point, Iran is playing both sides you fucking idiot and trap is playing with you the same way.  Jesus, how dense are you

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Cameron wrote:

Trapper asserted that Iran was not getting involved, and also that they were. Those are mutually exclusive statements. No amount of nuance, context, or spin can make them not be mutually exclusive.

He first said they were staying out in name, which I take to mean direct, non-proxy involvement. He made this statement as headlines were already indicating missile launches were imminent. When I pointed this out, he himself noted that Iran had already launched missiles at Israel in a previous retaliation, directly contradicting his previous statement (but I guess in his mind somehow cancelling out?). Then he said something non-sensical about how he can have it both ways. I then pointed out that his first statement in the exchange was nonsense, he posted something non-sensical about the earlier missiles Iran launched not counting as Iran getting involved, and then you felt the need to chime in in an apparent attempt to prove to everyone that you are even dumber than Trapper, and now here we are.

So I'm following along just fine.

That's literally the point, Iran is playing both sides you fucking idiot and trap is playing with you the same way.  Jesus, how dense are you

Iran is not playing both sides. Think about what that would mean in this context and what the two sides are. That was an extremely stupid thing to have said.