A contrast in Leadeship

Anyone who missed DJT’s epic speech tonight can watch here ��������

https://rumble.com/vvyt5c-donald-j.-...-02262022.html

This is Leadership.

... That was GRAND! ... And MOST of AMERICA surely sees
for themselves the "contrast in leadership"....

They surely SHOW IT in the poll numbers.

### Salty

I have the word of a former United States Light Colonel....
that colonel proved himself to be an honorable man.

He swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution to these United States!
Now what would you know about that?
Yeah I thought as much!
It's exact same oath that I took as an EM!

This is a man that was wounded in combat in service to this country.
A man that was entrusted to lead American soldiers in combat
And was trusted with their very lives!
A man that put his hand on the Bible and swore to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth on his word of honor!

See Berry there's something you don't understand.
The word honor!
The United States military officer corps takes the word honor very seriously!
Have you led troops in combat?
As I said, he did!

And without honor he would never been given a command!
And they do watch!
Especially when your a young lieutenant, when your most likely to exhibit character flaws, or to make stupid mistakes that get half of your platoon killed! Originally Posted by Dogface78

Hey, it sounds like Dawg is a really, really huge fan of Oliver North!!

Who knew?

Hey, it sounds like Dawg is a really, really huge fan of Oliver North!!

Who knew? Originally Posted by lustylad

Ollies heart was in the right place, but he stuck his dick in the fan!
Ollie was definitely in the kill a commie for your mommy club!
Killing them without even being on the battlefield!
Charlie Wilson was a great American, that stinger system he got the muhajaden is deadly!
Especially on helicopter!
It won that war!
It would hit those hinds right at the turbines just above the canopy and in some cases it would blow the armored cockpit free of the chopper and it would plummet to the ground by itself.
I heard where one ne afghan said you can almost smell the Russians shitting themselves on the way down!

Until they got those stingers they were getting thier asses handed to them all the time!
The hind is a flying tank and can withstand AAA cannon fire, and can actually stand there and trade rounds with you whereas our attack choppers of that Era were much more lightly built and relied quite on evasion a cobra is tiny in comparison.
But the stinger gets em almost every time!
You are looking at them on your TVs now, it's the big helo that is almost always flying in a nose down additude and usually pretty low and it is configured piliot and gunner sitting one behind the other its has the turret under the nose for its cannon and its pretty damn big too!
They are zipping around like flies in those videos in the Ukraine your watching now, and they are nasty!
I seen those small cargo choppers with the triple tail too the Russians like for thier smaller helos but really there's no mistaking the two!
I was AAA for one of my enlistments and to do my job I had to be able to ID aircraft!
I don't remember most of them, but you never forget the real baddies!


And no the Marine I had that conversation with was old enough that he is probably long gone by now!

Let's not forget

Michael Beschloss (@BeschlossDC) Tweeted:
"Trump campaign guts GOP’s anti-Russia stance on Ukraine”—July 18, 2016, Josh Rogin, Washington Post: https://t.co/lgKNFHQ9lv https://twitter.com/BeschlossDC/stat...oQHLHYB0BYaJcg

The Ukrainian people used to be a Republican priority. It was shocking that they weren't.
Originally Posted by HDGristle

What do you know - more misinformation from Gristle

A key talking point in the theory that Donald Trump and the Russians conspired in the 2016 election is the allegation that last summer, during the Republican convention, the Trump campaign changed the GOP platform to weaken its stance on Russia's aggression in Ukraine.

It's been cited many, many times. The only problem is, it's all wrong.

The wildest expression of the theory came, as it often does, from MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, who told viewers on March 8 that "something weird" happened to the GOP platform on "that Ukraine and Russia thing" when the Trump team "jumped right up on that and they insisted that that plank only, that one, had to be taken out, that language could not stand."

Maddow's charge echoed what Democrats have long been saying about the issue. "Donald Trump changed the Republican platform to become what some experts would regard as pro-Russian," Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook told ABC on July 24 of last year. Some journalists, including those less fevered than Maddow, joined in to report the so-called weakening as an accepted fact. National Public Radio, for example, explained "how the Trump campaign weakened the Republican platform on aid to Ukraine."

Much of the reporting and commentary appears to spring from a single story, published in the Washington Post on July 18, 2016, with the headline "Trump campaign guts GOP's anti-Russia stance on Ukraine." The piece reported that the Trump team "orchestrated a set of events" to change the platform in a pro-Russian direction.

Missing from all the talk is what the Republican platform actually said before it was allegedly "gutted" by Trump. What did the original draft of the platform say about Russia and Ukraine? Was it, in fact, changed? If so, how?

As it turns out, a look at the original draft of the platform — which has never been released publicly — shows that it always had tough language on Russian aggression in Ukraine. And not only did that language stay in the final platform — nothing was taken out — it was actually strengthened, not weakened, as a result of events at the convention.

.
.
.

Not only that, the later, final platform contained a few additional words on Russia and Ukraine that weren't in the original draft. To the first passage cited above, after "from the Baltic to the Caucasus," the GOP platform committee added this:

We support maintaining and, if warranted, increasing sanctions, together with our allies, against Russia unless and until Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully restored. We also support providing appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine and greater coordination with NATO defense planning.

That wasn't exactly pro-Russian, either. The bottom line: The original GOP draft platform contained reasonably tough language on Russia, and the amendment process added tougher language on Russia.

So how did the Trump-gutted-the-GOP-platform narrative get started?

It appears it was unwittingly set in motion by a single Republican delegate, a Texas woman long active in GOP politics named Diana Denman, who proposed to add a couple of paragraphs to the original platform's position on Ukraine.

In 1998, Denman traveled to Ukraine as an international observer for that country's parliamentary elections. Prior to that she had made several trips to the old Soviet Union. "I have kept an eye on the emerging democracies," she told me in a telephone talk Friday. "So when I drafted the plank, I tried to be very thoughtful and to address the problems that they have had and are still having."

Denman, one of 100 state delegates on the platform committee and one of about 20 on the subcommittee working on the national security part of the platform, wanted tougher language on Ukraine. She proposed this amendment:

Today, the post-Cold War ideal of a "Europe whole and free" is being severely tested by Russia's ongoing military aggression in Ukraine. Launched in 2014, Moscow's offensive constitutes the first attempt since the end of World War II to change by force the sovereign boundaries in Europe. Ukraine's government and people have shown a remarkable resolve to resist Russian pressure, including by mobilizing a military force that, together with European sanctions, has successfully thwarted further advances by the Russian military and its surrogates.
The Ukrainian people deserve our admiration and support in their struggle, and in their efforts to strengthen the rule of law, forge a free market economy, and expand democratic governance. We therefore support maintaining (and, if warranted, increasing) sanctions against Russia until Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully restored. We also support providing lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine's armed forces and greater coordination with NATO on defense planning. Simultaneously, we call for increased financial aid for Ukraine, as well as greater assistance in the economic and humanitarian spheres, including government reform and anti-corruption.

The first thing to note is that Denman's amendment, had it been added to the platform at the length she proposed it, would have given Ukraine an outsized presence in the platform. Besides, Denman's first paragraph basically repeated points that were already in the platform. So it seems highly unlikely that Denman's amendment would have been added to the platform in its entirety.

But the core of Denman's addition was in the second paragraph, in which she sought to add support of sanctions and "lethal defensive weapons" for Ukraine. While many Republicans support lethal aid, it would also be entirely reasonable not to include it — to leave an explicit commitment out of a platform that had already promised to "not accept any territorial change in Eastern Europe imposed by force, in Ukraine or elsewhere."

When Denman proposed her amendment, a Trump national security aide named J.D. Gordon, who was in the room, wanted to edit it. According to Denman, Gordon got on the phone, saying he was calling "New York" to discuss the changes.

The end result was that at the behest of the Trump campaign, the platform committee took out the first paragraph of Denman's amendment altogether. They took out the reference to "lethal defensive weapons" from the second paragraph. But they approved her statement of support for maintaining, and possibly increasing, sanctions against Russia, and, in the place of lethal aid, substituted a pledge to provide "appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine" and to work more closely with NATO. Here again is the final language that was added to the platform as a result of Denman's amendment:

We support maintaining and, if warranted, increasing sanctions, together with our allies, against Russia unless and until Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully restored. We also support providing appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine and greater coordination with NATO defense planning.

There was never a subcommittee vote on the change. People in the room, speaking anonymously, estimate that perhaps a handful of delegates supported Denman, another small group opposed, and a larger number were neutral, and happy with the compromise. There was no revolt.

"The platform ended up tougher than it started, compared from the beginning to the end," Denman told me, although she added she still believes her lethal aid provision should have been included in the final document.

By the way, in our conversation, Denman stressed her support of Donald Trump. She came to the convention a Ted Cruz delegate bound to vote for the Texas senator on the first ballot. But when Trump wrapped up the nomination, Denman told me, she supported him, contributed to him, and voted for him. And she supports him today.

"We move on," Denman said. "We go forward."

Not long after the platform subcommittee meeting, the Post's "Trump campaign guts GOP's anti-Russia stance on Ukraine" story was published, and a new conventional wisdom began to form: The Trump team, doing the bidding of Vladimir Putin, gutted the GOP platform's position on behalf of Russia.

That is precisely the opposite of what happened. In the end, the platform, already fairly strong on the Russia-Ukraine issue, was strengthened, not weakened, as a result of the subcommittee meeting. The Trump campaign agreed to a platform condemning Kremlin belligerence, calling for continued, and perhaps increased, sanctions against Russia, for the full restoration of Ukrainian territory, for refusing to accept "any territorial change in Eastern Europe imposed by force, in Ukraine or elsewhere," and pledging to aid Ukraine's armed forces.

The bottom line is that almost nothing in the Trump-weakened-the-GOP-platform narrative is as it seems. Whatever the full story of Trump and Russia in the 2016 campaign turns out to be, it will only be revealed by examining what actually happened, not by repeating talking points.


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/t...icle%2F2617802

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/04/56831...kraine-support

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2022/...War-in-Ukraine

https://www.politifact.com/article/2...nguage-benefi/

https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/20...kraine/494789/

People only virtue signal about Ukraine because the media tells them to. There’s been war after war and millions killed in the last 30 years and nobody gave a flying fuck, now all the sudden everyone is a humanitarian.

No bud, people did care!
People with a heart, something you and yours consider to be a weakness
It is people like you that didn't give a shit!
And people that did give a shit fought to stop it!
That is why you live in a democracy now!
Those things happened under dictatorships something that you and yours would like to install in this country!
And yes, you all would expose this country to that sort of genocide, and don't say it can't happen here!
It is clear you are a nazi, your comments leave no room for debate on the matter!
You and yours are a danger to this country its immigrant population, LGBT types, and anybody that yoj don't like for whatever reason!

Now I believe that we all were warned to get back on the subject!

People only virtue signal about Ukraine because the media tells them to. There’s been war after war and millions killed in the last 30 years and nobody gave a flying fuck, now all the sudden everyone is a humanitarian. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

People only virtue signal about Ukraine because the media tells them to. There’s been war after war and millions killed in the last 30 years and nobody gave a flying fuck, now all the sudden everyone is a humanitarian. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

You dumb boot stfu - people care about russia getting bigger and stronger which absolutely is a bad thing for American hegemony.

People only virtue signal about Ukraine because the media tells them to. There’s been war after war and millions killed in the last 30 years and nobody gave a flying fuck, now all the sudden everyone is a humanitarian. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Wrong. I care simply because human lives are being slaughtered over greed.

A Refresher for all on the Guidelines . . .

• #1 - Avoid cases of unprovoked rudeness to others. No place for it here. Yes, with the dynamic nature of the threads and topics, tempers will flare and things will become heated from time to time. You may often encounter individuals who become passionate or emotional when expressing one's opinion or point of view. That's all understood and perfectly acceptable within reason…….but, start slamming or bashing another member and be met with consequences.
• #3 - Disrespect to others, IN GENERAL, will be considered an item of low tolerance, especially when posting in our coed forums. Follow the Golden Rule and treat others as you wish to be treated yourself. This applies to fellow members as well as staff. We do not require that you have respect for us, but we do require that you treat us respectfully in the public forums. If you feel the need to vent, gripe, or blow off some steam regarding a staff member's action or decision, we ask that you keep it private. Email, RTM, or the PM system would be the appropriate avenue to take in such cases. In cases where you would like to request additional clarity about a staff decision, you are free to pursue an answer in either a public forum or private means of communication. If handled publicly, post your inquiry in a respectful manner.
• #4 - Blatant insults or hostility toward another member will be met with staff intervention. This applies to using our coed forums for name calling, personal attacks, or vulgar slang terms to describe fellow members. If you have legitimate concerns about another member here, share them tactfully in the appropriate private forums or with staff.

A Refresher for all on the Guidelines . . . Originally Posted by biomed1

YEAH RIGHT

What the Ukraine people need is about 200 A10s and some big gunships. Just paint over our flag with some blue and yellow and go shoot those ducks in a row. The invasion would be over in 3 weeks. That and humanitarian aid ala Berlin airlift, and keep Russia held w sanctions. The resulting coup in Moscow would be epic. Add some cyber warfare and counter intelligence insurgency...boom bye bye Vlad. On the other side who knows what kind of propaganda Putin has that he projects on to the daily media. Perhaps it's like Fox News was for Trump? You know completely unbelievable up his ass kind of bullshit

... Or as MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC ... did I miss any?
Are FOR BIDEN... And pushing false narratives
such-as Trump colluding with Russia ... And telling us
that Hunter's laptop was really fake Russian disinformation.

Crikey! ... Surely appears to be a Contrast in NEWS Leadership!

### Salty