A man you can bait with a Tweet

[knapplc]

A woman of few words, but she makes em' count. This should add to his morning cup o' joe meltdown.

I'd hoped a silver lining of Trump getting elected is that Hillary would disappear from the national stage.

Yes. But I'm afraid she's going to try to rally the base in much the same way Sarah Palin has. I'd hoped both Clinton & Palin would just go away. Oh well.

 

[BigRedBuster]

A woman of few words, but she makes em' count. This should add to his morning cup o' joe meltdown.

I'd hoped a silver lining of Trump getting elected is that Hillary would disappear from the national stage.

Yes. But I'm afraid she's going to try to rally the base in much the same way Sarah Palin has. I'd hoped both Clinton & Palin would just go away. Oh well.

That's a pipe dream that I wish would come true.

 

[TAKODA]

While he is the commander and chief, if a mission fails, he has little input on the intracacies of what and how a missoin was carried out. On the face of the event, it might appear to have failed because there was collateral damage and a brave young serviceman lost his life. What you don't see is the underlying affect, where strategic goals may have in fact been accomplished.

NM, in your next post, you are right about him tweeting and posturing as he does, this is something I wish he would remove himself from. He used social media to beat the press in the election, but in my opinion, this is not a good look. However, proaganda has always been used in politics as well as in combat or service. It's use or its usefulness, really depends on what the end goal is, and I am not privy to his end goal?

 

[Fru]

While he is the commander and chief, if a mission fails, he has little input on the intracacies of what and how a missoin was carried out. On the face of the event, it might appear to have failed because there was collateral damage and a brave young serviceman lost his life. What you don't see is the underlying affect, where strategic goals may have in fact been accomplished.

NM, in your next post, you are right about him tweeting and posturing as he does, this is something I wish he would remove himself from. He used social media to beat the press in the election, but in my opinion, this is not a good look. However, proaganda has always been used in politics as well as in combat or service. It's use or its usefulness, really depends on what the end goal is, and I am not privy to his end goal?

I won't lambast Trump for the raid itself not going well. That's the nature of those kinds of missions. There's always a strong element of chance, and things go awry. The results of that raid can happen to any President.

However I will lambast his decision making. He opts out of intelligence meetings constantly and openly mocks US intelligence. It's one thing to gather as much intelligence and information to make an informed calculated decision. It's another to decide something while eating dinner with your son in law and Bannon.

 

[RedDenver]

A woman of few words, but she makes em' count. This should add to his morning cup o' joe meltdown.

I'd hoped a silver lining of Trump getting elected is that Hillary would disappear from the national stage.

Yes. But I'm afraid she's going to try to rally the base in much the same way Sarah Palin has. I'd hoped both Clinton & Palin would just go away. Oh well.

The respective bases have clearly indicated that Clinton and Palin cannot rally them, and in fact have mostly the opposite effect.

 

[TAKODA]

While he is the commander and chief, if a mission fails, he has little input on the intracacies of what and how a missoin was carried out. On the face of the event, it might appear to have failed because there was collateral damage and a brave young serviceman lost his life. What you don't see is the underlying affect, where strategic goals may have in fact been accomplished.

NM, in your next post, you are right about him tweeting and posturing as he does, this is something I wish he would remove himself from. He used social media to beat the press in the election, but in my opinion, this is not a good look. However, proaganda has always been used in politics as well as in combat or service. It's use or its usefulness, really depends on what the end goal is, and I am not privy to his end goal?

I won't lambast Trump for the raid itself not going well. That's the nature of those kinds of missions. There's always a strong element of chance, and things go awry. The results of that raid can happen to any President.

However I will lambast his decision making. He opts out of intelligence meetings constantly and openly mocks US intelligence. It's one thing to gather as much intelligence and information to make an informed calculated decision. It's another to decide something while eating dinner with your son in law and Bannon.

Fru, you are right on first part.

I can't claim to know what he knows or how or when the he is briefed with the intelligence. I get what you are saying based on what is being put out there in the media, but I am fairly certain, the media is not privy to the inner workings and communications of those who have the clearances and invitations to be involved in such matters, so I will defer to those in the know!

 

[knapplc]

Congress will probably want to have eight investigations on the Yemen raid so they really understand what happened. Give it the ol' Benghazi treatment.

 

[Fru]

While he is the commander and chief, if a mission fails, he has little input on the intracacies of what and how a missoin was carried out. On the face of the event, it might appear to have failed because there was collateral damage and a brave young serviceman lost his life. What you don't see is the underlying affect, where strategic goals may have in fact been accomplished.

NM, in your next post, you are right about him tweeting and posturing as he does, this is something I wish he would remove himself from. He used social media to beat the press in the election, but in my opinion, this is not a good look. However, proaganda has always been used in politics as well as in combat or service. It's use or its usefulness, really depends on what the end goal is, and I am not privy to his end goal?

I won't lambast Trump for the raid itself not going well. That's the nature of those kinds of missions. There's always a strong element of chance, and things go awry. The results of that raid can happen to any President.

However I will lambast his decision making. He opts out of intelligence meetings constantly and openly mocks US intelligence. It's one thing to gather as much intelligence and information to make an informed calculated decision. It's another to decide something while eating dinner with your son in law and Bannon.

Fru, you are right on first part.

I can't claim to know what he knows or how or when the he is briefed with the intelligence. I get what you are saying based on what is being put out there in the media, but I am fairly certain, the media is not privy to the inner workings and communications of those who have the clearances and invitations to be involved in such matters, so I will defer to those in the know!

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-briefings-232479

“You know, I'm, like, a smart person. I don't have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years. Could be eight years — but eight years. I don't need that”

Maybe you do Donald.

 

[TAKODA]

While he is the commander and chief, if a mission fails, he has little input on the intracacies of what and how a missoin was carried out. On the face of the event, it might appear to have failed because there was collateral damage and a brave young serviceman lost his life. What you don't see is the underlying affect, where strategic goals may have in fact been accomplished.

NM, in your next post, you are right about him tweeting and posturing as he does, this is something I wish he would remove himself from. He used social media to beat the press in the election, but in my opinion, this is not a good look. However, proaganda has always been used in politics as well as in combat or service. It's use or its usefulness, really depends on what the end goal is, and I am not privy to his end goal?

Fru, I get it, this appears to be concerning to some but for me, its sensationalizing a point to cause angst, that needs not be there.
DT is reachable by those who make the determinations everyday, if something needs to be addressed. The respective duties of those who report directly to the Office of the President, make assessments, recommendations and basically are the ones who keep a watchful eye on things of national security and have direct and immidate access to DT. (Do I dare say that some of you probably feel better that DT is not putting his opinion out there on every aspect being covered in those briefings).

This process is the same as was and has been for ages. The difference is, Obama was more inclined to attend the events as his schedule allowed or as he felt the need to be involved.

I won't lambast Trump for the raid itself not going well. That's the nature of those kinds of missions. There's always a strong element of chance, and things go awry. The results of that raid can happen to any President.

However I will lambast his decision making. He opts out of intelligence meetings constantly and openly mocks US intelligence. It's one thing to gather as much intelligence and information to make an informed calculated decision. It's another to decide something while eating dinner with your son in law and Bannon.

Fru, you are right on first part.I can't claim to know what he knows or how or when the he is briefed with the intelligence. I get what you are saying based on what is being put out there in the media, but I am fairly certain, the media is not privy to the inner workings and communications of those who have the clearances and invitations to be involved in such matters, so I will defer to those in the know!

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-briefings-232479

You know, I'm, like, a smart person. I don't have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years. Could be eight years but eight years. I don't need that

Maybe you do Donald.

Edit ~ Sorry, my reply got incorporated above somewhere so I copied and pasted it in the proper place here: Yikes
Fru, I get it, this appears to be concerning to some but for me, its sensationalizing a point to cause angst, that needs not be there.

DT is reachable by those who make the determinations everyday, if something needs to be addressed. The respective duties of those who report directly to the Office of the President, make assessments, recommendations and basically are the ones who keep a watchful eye on things of national security and have direct and immidate access to DT. (Do I dare say that some of you probably feel better that DT is not putting his opinion out there on every aspect being covered in those briefings).

This process is the same as was and has been for ages. The difference is, Obama was more inclined to attend the events as his schedule allowed or as he felt the need to be involved.

 

[AR Husker Fan]

Speaking of tweets getting under the so-called president's skin, I hope he sees this one...

 

[knapplc]

DT is reachable by those who make the determinations everyday, if something needs to be addressed. The respective duties of those who report directly to the Office of the President, make assessments, recommendations and basically are the ones who keep a watchful eye on things of national security and have direct and immidate access to DT.

How do you know any of this is true?

 

[Fru]

While he is the commander and chief, if a mission fails, he has little input on the intracacies of what and how a missoin was carried out. On the face of the event, it might appear to have failed because there was collateral damage and a brave young serviceman lost his life. What you don't see is the underlying affect, where strategic goals may have in fact been accomplished.

NM, in your next post, you are right about him tweeting and posturing as he does, this is something I wish he would remove himself from. He used social media to beat the press in the election, but in my opinion, this is not a good look. However, proaganda has always been used in politics as well as in combat or service. It's use or its usefulness, really depends on what the end goal is, and I am not privy to his end goal?

Fru, I get it, this appears to be concerning to some but for me, its sensationalizing a point to cause angst, that needs not be there.
DT is reachable by those who make the determinations everyday, if something needs to be addressed. The respective duties of those who report directly to the Office of the President, make assessments, recommendations and basically are the ones who keep a watchful eye on things of national security and have direct and immidate access to DT. (Do I dare say that some of you probably feel better that DT is not putting his opinion out there on every aspect being covered in those briefings).

This process is the same as was and has been for ages. The difference is, Obama was more inclined to attend the events as his schedule allowed or as he felt the need to be involved.

I won't lambast Trump for the raid itself not going well. That's the nature of those kinds of missions. There's always a strong element of chance, and things go awry. The results of that raid can happen to any President.

However I will lambast his decision making. He opts out of intelligence meetings constantly and openly mocks US intelligence. It's one thing to gather as much intelligence and information to make an informed calculated decision. It's another to decide something while eating dinner with your son in law and Bannon.

Fru, you are right on first part.I can't claim to know what he knows or how or when the he is briefed with the intelligence. I get what you are saying based on what is being put out there in the media, but I am fairly certain, the media is not privy to the inner workings and communications of those who have the clearances and invitations to be involved in such matters, so I will defer to those in the know!

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-briefings-232479

You know, I'm, like, a smart person. I don't have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years. Could be eight years but eight years. I don't need that

Maybe you do Donald.

Edit ~ Sorry, my reply got incorporated above somewhere so I copied and pasted it in the proper place here: Yikes
Fru, I get it, this appears to be concerning to some but for me, its sensationalizing a point to cause angst, that needs not be there.

DT is reachable by those who make the determinations everyday, if something needs to be addressed. The respective duties of those who report directly to the Office of the President, make assessments, recommendations and basically are the ones who keep a watchful eye on things of national security and have direct and immidate access to DT. (Do I dare say that some of you probably feel better that DT is not putting his opinion out there on every aspect being covered in those briefings).

This process is the same as was and has been for ages. The difference is, Obama was more inclined to attend the events as his schedule allowed or as he felt the need to be involved.

Yes, a President who is willfully uninformed is concerning to me. I'm not sure why that wouldn't concern you.

I'm also not sure why you have such unbridled optimism that he is "reachable." When has that ever been displayed?

I'm well aware of the process put in place. My concern is the people who are carrying out that process. This is a devastatingly unqualified administration.

 

[TAKODA]

DT is reachable by those who make the determinations everyday, if something needs to be addressed. The respective duties of those who report directly to the Office of the President, make assessments, recommendations and basically are the ones who keep a watchful eye on things of national security and have direct and immidate access to DT.

How do you know any of this is true?

A bird told me so!
Quick edit ~

Sorry, I guess shouldn't make light of things that appear to be bothersome to some. Let me rephrase my comments:

This is how it has/had been, I guess I can't say how it is today with 100% certainty, but I would be willing to bet those just under him, have their finger on the pulse of what is or is not of concern, when it comes to National Security.

Is there any system infallible, nope!

 

[knapplc]

Sounds more like something a Fox told you.

We have reason to doubt that this rosy belief about Trump is true based on his own actions.

 

[TAKODA]

Sounds more like something a Fox told you.We have reason to doubt that this rosy belief about Trump is true based on his own actions.

Only time I look at Fox or the other reporters hype, is when everyone here post them, otherwise, its mostly just noise to me!