Will Trump's response to Iran be more severe, less sever, or muted? (Poll)

[Uncensored2008]

I certainly don't want us to go to war unless it is absolutely necessary. I do feel like the "attempted" attack on our embassy deserved some kind of response though. I do like that President Trump's response was quite . . . reserved. At least according to our leftists, he would have just JUMPED at the opportunity to start WWIII. Thankfully, that is not the case. I don't think the president wants a war either. He doesn't want to let Iranians push us around either, and the only thing those lunatics seem to understand is violence.

Taking out the terrorist, Soliemani was the wise course of action. That the democrats have thrown a fit over neutralizing a person murdering Americans shows a great deal about the democrats.

I actually think they were hoping for another Benghazi. That way if anybody would bring it up in the future, they could say "See! Trump did it too!"

Trump didn't make the same mistake that ears did, and that frustrates them. They consider DumBama the king of their party, and the very idea that Trump did better than him in such a situation has them pissed off that our President took the correct action their President didn't.

It's nice to have a president that wants to protect Americans and OUR interests, isn't it? I can see that the TDS has only become more of an epidemic. The hatred meter is off the CHARTS!

This is nothing. You should have seen them during the Russian investigation farce. Must have been 100 topics about it from the left, swearing that this was it for Trump; it's over now! It was quite comical.

They're less pissed about the action Trump took than they are that Trump didn't include the Commies in the decision, so they could take credit for it as well. That's what has them pissed off. If Trump did include them, Piglosi would be addressing the media how it was their action that took out this maniac, and yes, Trump was a small part of that success.

Of course he wouldn't share that info with them! They would have just blabbed their big hot air spewing mouths about it all over the place! Leftists cannot be trusted.

Really nice to have you back Chris!

 

[ChrisL]

Taking out the terrorist, Soliemani was the wise course of action. That the democrats have thrown a fit over neutralizing a person murdering Americans shows a great deal about the democrats.

I actually think they were hoping for another Benghazi. That way if anybody would bring it up in the future, they could say "See! Trump did it too!"

Trump didn't make the same mistake that ears did, and that frustrates them. They consider DumBama the king of their party, and the very idea that Trump did better than him in such a situation has them pissed off that our President took the correct action their President didn't.

It's nice to have a president that wants to protect Americans and OUR interests, isn't it? I can see that the TDS has only become more of an epidemic. The hatred meter is off the CHARTS!

This is nothing. You should have seen them during the Russian investigation farce. Must have been 100 topics about it from the left, swearing that this was it for Trump; it's over now! It was quite comical.

They're less pissed about the action Trump took than they are that Trump didn't include the Commies in the decision, so they could take credit for it as well. That's what has them pissed off. If Trump did include them, Piglosi would be addressing the media how it was their action that took out this maniac, and yes, Trump was a small part of that success.

Of course he wouldn't share that info with them! They would have just blabbed their big hot air spewing mouths about it all over the place! Leftists cannot be trusted.

Really nice to have you back Chris!

Thanks! I appreciate that.

 

[Dr Grump]

I ll put it this way. To me it would be like a bald guy making fun of someone’s hair style. It’s fine but they should expect a retort.

At the risk of sounding like I'm in the playground, he started it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I certainly don't want us to go to war unless it is absolutely necessary. I do feel like the "attempted" attack on our embassy deserved some kind of response though. I do like that President Trump's response was quite . . . reserved. At least according to our leftists, he would have just JUMPED at the opportunity to start WWIII. Thankfully, that is not the case. I don't think the president wants a war either. He doesn't want to let Iranians push us around either, and the only thing those lunatics seem to understand is violence.

Taking out the terrorist, Soliemani was the wise course of action. That the democrats have thrown a fit over neutralizing a person murdering Americans shows a great deal about the democrats.

I actually think they were hoping for another Benghazi. That way if anybody would bring it up in the future, they could say "See! Trump did it too!"

Trump didn't make the same mistake that ears did, and that frustrates them. They consider DumBama the king of their party, and the very idea that Trump did better than him in such a situation has them pissed off that our President took the correct action their President didn't.

It's nice to have a president that wants to protect Americans and OUR interests, isn't it? I can see that the TDS has only become more of an epidemic. The hatred meter is off the CHARTS!

This is nothing. You should have seen them during the Russian investigation farce. Must have been 100 topics about it from the left, swearing that this was it for Trump; it's over now! It was quite comical.

They're less pissed about the action Trump took than they are that Trump didn't include the Commies in the decision, so they could take credit for it as well. That's what has them pissed off. If Trump did include them, Piglosi would be addressing the media how it was their action that took out this maniac, and yes, Trump was a small part of that success.

Of course he wouldn't share that info with them! They would have just blabbed their big hot air spewing mouths about it all over the place! Leftists cannot be trusted.

Of course. They think Trump is stupid. Like he doesn't know where all these "anonymous sources" the NYT quotes actually come from. They think after the stunts they are pulling on him, Trump is going to be their buddy and include them in matters he has no obligation to.

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

 

[basquebromance]

Trump does not want regime change in Iran, my friends, but he does want Iran to change its behavior!

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I voted, even though I already know how it turns out. That is what I thought would happen anyways. Donald Trump isn't interested in starting wars, but watch the leftists spin. Lol!

 

[ChrisL]

Taking out the terrorist, Soliemani was the wise course of action. That the democrats have thrown a fit over neutralizing a person murdering Americans shows a great deal about the democrats.

I actually think they were hoping for another Benghazi. That way if anybody would bring it up in the future, they could say "See! Trump did it too!"

Trump didn't make the same mistake that ears did, and that frustrates them. They consider DumBama the king of their party, and the very idea that Trump did better than him in such a situation has them pissed off that our President took the correct action their President didn't.

It's nice to have a president that wants to protect Americans and OUR interests, isn't it? I can see that the TDS has only become more of an epidemic. The hatred meter is off the CHARTS!

This is nothing. You should have seen them during the Russian investigation farce. Must have been 100 topics about it from the left, swearing that this was it for Trump; it's over now! It was quite comical.

They're less pissed about the action Trump took than they are that Trump didn't include the Commies in the decision, so they could take credit for it as well. That's what has them pissed off. If Trump did include them, Piglosi would be addressing the media how it was their action that took out this maniac, and yes, Trump was a small part of that success.

Of course he wouldn't share that info with them! They would have just blabbed their big hot air spewing mouths about it all over the place! Leftists cannot be trusted.

Of course. They think Trump is stupid. Like he doesn't know where all these "anonymous sources" the NYT quotes actually come from. They think after the stunts they are pulling on him, Trump is going to be their buddy and include them in matters he has no obligation to.

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Who needs enemies INDEED! Goodness. The left is out of control.

 

[Dr Grump]

You should. He clearly perjured himself, committed a felony, and every single Democrat in the Senate voted not guilty. That's troubling.

Absolutely. He committed the offence. However, I do remember a few rightest on this board are huge fans of jury nullification....just sayin'

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You should. He clearly perjured himself, committed a felony, and every single Democrat in the Senate voted not guilty. That's troubling.

Absolutely. He committed the offence. However, I do remember a few rightest on this board are huge fans of jury nullification....just sayin'

Such as?

The point I'm making is that it was extremely clear that Bill Clinton committed a higher crime than a misdemeanor. He committed a felony, and yet, the Democrats (and some Republicans) voted that even though his offense clearly warranted his removal from office, they didn't do it.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

You fell for the leftist lie that Bill got impeached for a BJ. I defy anybody to show me the articles of impeachment for that reason. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying to a federal grand jury. If I remember correctly, eight felony counts against him.

Furthermore, the vote to remove Clinton from office had actual evidence, both recorded and DNA, and seven Republicans still voted not guilty. All Democrats voted not guilty.

It should make an interesting comparison on how Democrats will vote in the Senate on Trump's removal from office.

And I'm saying I don't give a shit that he lied under oath about getting a blow job.
Lying about WMDs however....

The funny thing about lies is in order to prove somebody lied, you have to prove they knew the truth first.

It's not that Clinton lied about getting a BJ, it's who he lied to that counts. Same thing if any politician lies to the public, that's one thing. Lie to the FBI or the House is quite another thing.

Perjury is perjury whether you commit it for a jaywalking violation or assault and battery. It's perjury regardless of the reason you perjured yourself. If Clinton were not President, it's likely he would have spent some time in jail. There is no first, or second, or third degree perjury, it's perjury period.

It wasn't just his own perjury, he was also charged with suborning perjury.

 

[Dr Grump]

The point I'm making is that it was extremely clear that Bill Clinton committed a higher crime than a misdemeanor. He committed a felony, and yet, the Democrats (and some Republicans) voted that even though his offense clearly warranted his removal from office, they didn't do it.

This is where you and I differ. I don't have a problem with him lying about a blow job in the first place. Why was it Starr's business? Anyone for that matter.

WMDs on the other hand...or lackthereof...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The point I'm making is that it was extremely clear that Bill Clinton committed a higher crime than a misdemeanor. He committed a felony, and yet, the Democrats (and some Republicans) voted that even though his offense clearly warranted his removal from office, they didn't do it.

This is where you and I differ. I don't have a problem with him lying about a blow job in the first place. Why was it Starr's business? Anyone for that matter.

WMDs on the other hand...or lackthereof...

It's nothing but an urban legend that Bush knew Saddam didn't have WMD's. Later on, they did find WMD's, just not the amount that they thought was there.

In any case, we don't impeach a President who was wrong about something. Otherwise every President in modern history would have been impeached. Being incorrect is not a high crime or misdemeanor.

 

[Dr Grump]

It's nothing but an urban legend that Bush knew Saddam didn't have WMD's. Later on, they did find WMD's, just not the amount that they thought was there.

In any case, we don't impeach a President who was wrong about something. Otherwise every President in modern history would have been impeached. Being incorrect is not a high crime or misdemeanor.

IMO he didn't investigate hard enough. Also, lies by omission are still lies. He might not have known, but he didn't want to know.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's nothing but an urban legend that Bush knew Saddam didn't have WMD's. Later on, they did find WMD's, just not the amount that they thought was there.

In any case, we don't impeach a President who was wrong about something. Otherwise every President in modern history would have been impeached. Being incorrect is not a high crime or misdemeanor.

IMO he didn't investigate hard enough. Also, lies by omission are still lies. He might not have known, but he didn't want to know.

What was there to investigate? It was pretty much a closed deal which started the problem in the first place. Saddam agreed to let UN inspectors inspect anywhere they desired, and then changed his mind once they got there. Clinton told the UN inspectors to leave so he could bomb the place.

Bush had foreign intelligence. He gave Saddam the opportunity to provide evidence the weapons he had were destroyed. Saddam provided some fake documents. Then were were the satellite images of Saddam moving possible WMD's to Syria.

I'm not saying the Iraq war was a good thing, but I don't think Bush knew Saddam didn't have them, and only used that as an excuse to get rid of him.

 

[Dr Grump]

and only used that as an excuse to get rid of him.

Exactly. When he had no business doing so.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, I voted, even though I already know how it turns out. That is what I thought would happen anyways. Donald Trump isn't interested in starting wars, but watch the leftists spin. Lol!

I was listening to the President as I drove home from work a few minutes ago. He stated very clearly that since there were not deaths and no injuries, he is not going to retaliate.

I guess WWIII is over, and we won.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You fell for the leftist lie that Bill got impeached for a BJ. I defy anybody to show me the articles of impeachment for that reason. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying to a federal grand jury. If I remember correctly, eight felony counts against him.

Furthermore, the vote to remove Clinton from office had actual evidence, both recorded and DNA, and seven Republicans still voted not guilty. All Democrats voted not guilty.

It should make an interesting comparison on how Democrats will vote in the Senate on Trump's removal from office.

And I'm saying I don't give a shit that he lied under oath about getting a blow job.
Lying about WMDs however....

The funny thing about lies is in order to prove somebody lied, you have to prove they knew the truth first.

It's not that Clinton lied about getting a BJ, it's who he lied to that counts. Same thing if any politician lies to the public, that's one thing. Lie to the FBI or the House is quite another thing.

Perjury is perjury whether you commit it for a jaywalking violation or assault and battery. It's perjury regardless of the reason you perjured yourself. If Clinton were not President, it's likely he would have spent some time in jail. There is no first, or second, or third degree perjury, it's perjury period.

It wasn't just his own perjury, he was also charged with suborning perjury.

And obstructing justice by witness tampering, threatening a witness.

Funny thing about that, the threats against Betty Currie were exposed by a Whistleblower, Linda Tripp. But the democrat media didn't hide her name, the way they tried to hide Eric Ciaramella. In fact, the democrats RETALIATED against Linda Tripp and tried to put her in prison for whistleblowing.

 

[Dr Grump]

And obstructing justice by witness tampering, threatening a witness.

Funny thing about that, the threats against Betty Currie were exposed by a Whistleblower, Linda Tripp. But the democrat media didn't hide her name, the way they tried to hide Eric Ciaramella. In fact, the democrats RETALIATED against Linda Tripp and tried to put her in prison for whistleblowing.

Because she was a fat pig who was pissed off that Bill didn't want to shag her. She was malicious. Why did she even become involved? Lewinsky blowing Bill was their business. Nothing to do with her.

Ciaramella on the other hand was reporting that the US president was threatening the president of the Ukraine if he didn't give him dirt on the opposition. Gee, which would affect me more - some dude getting blown, or some Shit Stain president trying to undermine democracy....hhhmmm...let me think...

 

[Uncensored2008]

And obstructing justice by witness tampering, threatening a witness.

Funny thing about that, the threats against Betty Currie were exposed by a Whistleblower, Linda Tripp. But the democrat media didn't hide her name, the way they tried to hide Eric Ciaramella. In fact, the democrats RETALIATED against Linda Tripp and tried to put her in prison for whistleblowing.

Because she was a fat pig who was pissed off that Bill didn't want to shag her. She was malicious. Why did she even become involved? Lewinsky blowing Bill was their business. Nothing to do with her.

Ciaramella on the other hand was reporting that the US president was threatening the president of the Ukraine if he didn't give him dirt on the opposition. Gee, which would affect me more - some dude getting blown, or some Shit Stain president trying to undermine democracy....hhhmmm...let me think...

Got it!

So, whistleblowers who expose democrats are "fat pigs" who must be destroyed.

Not like the noble whistleblowers who use thirdhand rumors against a Republican, they must be protected.

I mean, you're not a fucking hypocrite.....

 

[9thIDdoc]

and only used that as an excuse to get rid of him.

Exactly. When he had no business doing so.

The actual reason was that Iraq violated the cease-fire agreement they made after their invasion of their Southern neighbor. We had been fighting them off and on for 10 years or so (long before Bush was in office) and it was long past time for us to end that war by winning it.