Topic: 111 Former GOP Officials Endorse Harris
Reply
Bart's photo

Bart

Mon 09/23/24 05:51 PM





1/ Names mention on the list are RINO's and warmongers.

2/ When Zachkerberg can state how he was pressure by the government to censored the NYP story of Hunter laptop which turn out to be true and not Russian disinformation and two signatories supported the said Russian disinformation, a list like that will not be taken seriously by the main Republican party or serious Republician voters.


It's not just the RINOs.

This out today:
More than 700 high-ranking national security officials endorse Harris
More than 700 high-ranking national security officials have endorsed Democratic candidate Vice President Harris in her run for the White House, with some leaders expressing concerns about former President Trump’s “scary authoritarian streak.”


65% of the rank and file Teamsters Union mambers are for Trump. Even though they won’t endorse either candidate, they can’t endorse Harris with her past failures so evident to most working folks. And they are afraid to endorse Trump because of the pandemic of TDS the administration would somehow retaliate against the Union.. 700 high ranking officials ..like Comey or Clapper or some of the other lying corrupted officials that lied about the “Trump collusion fiasco” ? I’m still not impressed…have you got a answer about why the Biden administration told his Border agents to keep quiet about the 100s of suspects on the terror watch list that have gotten across our border and hiding out somewhere to do who knows what.. Biden and Harris and the rest of the democrats are by far the least transparent government ever..

Looks like you made up those statistics on Teamster support for The Donald. From their own webpage, official straw poll results shows Trump only got 36.3% support to Biden's 44.3% (poll taken before Biden dropped out).
teamster.org/2024/09/teamsters-release-presidential-endorsement-polling-data/

And you can read the list of NSL signatories on their website:
www.nsl4a.org/nsl4a-announcements/nsl4a-endorsement-harris
James Clapper is in the list, being a flagged officer and former DNI director. James Comey is not in the list. But seriously, anyone who knows anything about national security can see that Trump is a disaster.

My statement was about Harris losing the teamsters endorsement not Biden . He’s not running for President after they pushed him out like a white Navy recruit. 60% of teamsters approve Trump over Harris . Only 30% for Kamala. That says a lot about what color their blue wall is turning..any former intel agent that openly says that Harris presidency would be better for this country than a Trump presidency is either getting paid to say that non-sense, or they are just stupid… LOL why would anyone overlook the unlawful acts committed by the FBI or Biden’s DOJ in their attacks against Trump.
Mortman's photo

Mortman

Tue 09/24/24 02:11 AM


Personally, I do not believe any army USA or otherwise should be endorsing any political candidates. That is heading into dangerous territory and setting a dangerous precedent. That is the norm of dictatorships and communist countries. A country's military serves its country regardless of who is in power. Their job is not to make political statements. Not forgetting, Obama asked for the resignation of and sacked many military personnel and staffed the military who are aligned with the Democrat party.

If Trump is ill informed, the military leaders/advisors around him were ill informed.

Nothing about Kamala, outside of prepared speeches and rehearsed answers, inspires confidence and competence. Hillary would made a better candidate. Harris suffers from anxiety and nervousness. For her position,since becoming VP, she should have been coached according or continue to be. Obama started out reading from teleprompters and written scripts until he was able to articulate answers from the top of his head instead of rambling for answers.


As for Trump and his association with dictators, I said it and I will say it again, American warmongers both Republican and Democrats, are not interested in peace but war. It's double speak shouting across the ocean calling for peace but at the same time insulting and criticising your enemies instead of making the inroads to peace. That is what Trump did. Those that criticise his efforts are hypocrites. There were no new wars under his administration. If you see yourself as a peace maker and want a better world for everyone, hopefully, then the onus is on you as a superpower to be such, not to inflamed already fragile situations. Unfortunately the strength of the American dollar are back by military power but that can only be for so long.

It's not the Army endorsing Harris. Those are retired military and mostly former national security leaders, and they belong to the National Security Leadership organization. Current military officers are actually prohibited from directly engaging in politics to that extent.

Trump's ignorance isn't that he was informed by uninformed military, but rather that he was impatient and famously never read reports much longer than a single page, and often needed a verbal presentation with lots of graphical aids to understand more complex topics, and that often didn't work.

In 2019, Time reported on the conflicting accounts between Trump and the national intelligence organizations: In the wake of President Donald Trump’s renewed attacks on the U.S. intelligence community this week, senior intelligence briefers are breaking two years of silence to warn that the President is endangering American security with what they say is a stubborn disregard for their assessments.

Lastly, while trump didn't officially start any new wars, he wasn't peaceful. He broke up the Iran nuclear deal and ordered a military strike on the Iranian general Qasem Soleiamani, and when "negotiating" the withdrawal from Afghanistan, he released 5,000 Taliban combatants. Iran is much further along toward building nuclear weapons now than ever before, and the Afghan Provisional Authority was never even in on the negotiations. That kind of short-sightedness deserves all the alarm we see now.
Bart's photo

Bart

Tue 09/24/24 05:19 AM



Personally, I do not believe any army USA or otherwise should be endorsing any political candidates. That is heading into dangerous territory and setting a dangerous precedent. That is the norm of dictatorships and communist countries. A country's military serves its country regardless of who is in power. Their job is not to make political statements. Not forgetting, Obama asked for the resignation of and sacked many military personnel and staffed the military who are aligned with the Democrat party.

If Trump is ill informed, the military leaders/advisors around him were ill informed.

Nothing about Kamala, outside of prepared speeches and rehearsed answers, inspires confidence and competence. Hillary would made a better candidate. Harris suffers from anxiety and nervousness. For her position,since becoming VP, she should have been coached according or continue to be. Obama started out reading from teleprompters and written scripts until he was able to articulate answers from the top of his head instead of rambling for answers.


As for Trump and his association with dictators, I said it and I will say it again, American warmongers both Republican and Democrats, are not interested in peace but war. It's double speak shouting across the ocean calling for peace but at the same time insulting and criticising your enemies instead of making the inroads to peace. That is what Trump did. Those that criticise his efforts are hypocrites. There were no new wars under his administration. If you see yourself as a peace maker and want a better world for everyone, hopefully, then the onus is on you as a superpower to be such, not to inflamed already fragile situations. Unfortunately the strength of the American dollar are back by military power but that can only be for so long.

It's not the Army endorsing Harris. Those are retired military and mostly former national security leaders, and they belong to the National Security Leadership organization. Current military officers are actually prohibited from directly engaging in politics to that extent.

Trump's ignorance isn't that he was informed by uninformed military, but rather that he was impatient and famously never read reports much longer than a single page, and often needed a verbal presentation with lots of graphical aids to understand more complex topics, and that often didn't work.

In 2019, Time reported on the conflicting accounts between Trump and the national intelligence organizations: In the wake of President Donald Trump’s renewed attacks on the U.S. intelligence community this week, senior intelligence briefers are breaking two years of silence to warn that the President is endangering American security with what they say is a stubborn disregard for their assessments.

Lastly, while trump didn't officially start any new wars, he wasn't peaceful. He broke up the Iran nuclear deal and ordered a military strike on the Iranian general Qasem Soleiamani, and when "negotiating" the withdrawal from Afghanistan, he released 5,000 Taliban combatants. Iran is much further along toward building nuclear weapons now than ever before, and the Afghan Provisional Authority was never even in on the negotiations. That kind of short-sightedness deserves all the alarm we see now.

Yea the Taliban is stronger because of Biden and Harris weakness of foreign affairs strategy.. Biden could have stopped the withdrawal and started over but he had no plans or ideas how to get out successfully. He’s been making bad policy for 40 plus years. Thank yo Trump for ordering the killing of these terrorist leaders. While Biden avoids killing our enemy’s because he’s afraid of what Iran or Russia may do . That is the weakness that Biden exemplifies to the world. Kamala Harris will be a repeat of the last four years and maybe worse. Just listen to her Vice President candidate, Tim Waltz says we can not afford another four years like the past four. And her campaign team refuse to answer the question’ are we better off now than we were fours years ago… a vote for Kamala is a vote for keeping the borders open and the grocery prices high, and a possible WW3…
Toodygirl5's photo

Toodygirl5

Tue 09/24/24 06:59 PM






https://www.newsmax.com/politics/kamala-harris-swing-states-donald-trump/2024/09/21/id/1181226/

Harris Fails to move Swing states.
Toodygirl5's photo

Toodygirl5

Tue 09/24/24 07:07 PM



https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/08/kamala-harris-food-prices/679593/



What Kamala doesn't get about food prices.
Mortman's photo

Mortman

Fri 10/04/24 08:03 PM

Yea the Taliban is stronger because of Biden and Harris weakness of foreign affairs strategy.. Biden could have stopped the withdrawal and started over but he had no plans or ideas how to get out successfully. He’s been making bad policy for 40 plus years. Thank yo Trump for ordering the killing of these terrorist leaders. While Biden avoids killing our enemy’s because he’s afraid of what Iran or Russia may do . That is the weakness that Biden exemplifies to the world. Kamala Harris will be a repeat of the last four years and maybe worse. Just listen to her Vice President candidate, Tim Waltz says we can not afford another four years like the past four. And her campaign team refuse to answer the question’ are we better off now than we were fours years ago… a vote for Kamala is a vote for keeping the borders open and the grocery prices high, and a possible WW3…

Biden had nothing to do with Trump & Pompeo negotiating to free 2500 Taliban fighters. And the withdrawal from Afghanistan was an overall success, in that the US evacuated 120,000 people safely. The suicide bomb attack at Abbey Gate was not something anybody could plan for, and the US deaths caused by it are just a fraction of the lives saved by not keeping a permanent military presence there. Remember that during the Trump Administration, the US lost over 40 soldiers in Afghanistan, and dozens more in other regions, but you don't mention those. Do they not count?
Slimme's photo

Slimme

Tue 10/08/24 06:02 AM



Personally, I do not believe any army USA or otherwise should be endorsing any political candidates. That is heading into dangerous territory and setting a dangerous precedent. That is the norm of dictatorships and communist countries. A country's military serves its country regardless of who is in power. Their job is not to make political statements. Not forgetting, Obama asked for the resignation of and sacked many military personnel and staffed the military who are aligned with the Democrat party.

If Trump is ill informed, the military leaders/advisors around him were ill informed.

Nothing about Kamala, outside of prepared speeches and rehearsed answers, inspires confidence and competence. Hillary would made a better candidate. Harris suffers from anxiety and nervousness. For her position,since becoming VP, she should have been coached according or continue to be. Obama started out reading from teleprompters and written scripts until he was able to articulate answers from the top of his head instead of rambling for answers.


As for Trump and his association with dictators, I said it and I will say it again, American warmongers both Republican and Democrats, are not interested in peace but war. It's double speak shouting across the ocean calling for peace but at the same time insulting and criticising your enemies instead of making the inroads to peace. That is what Trump did. Those that criticise his efforts are hypocrites. There were no new wars under his administration. If you see yourself as a peace maker and want a better world for everyone, hopefully, then the onus is on you as a superpower to be such, not to inflamed already fragile situations. Unfortunately the strength of the American dollar are back by military power but that can only be for so long.

It's not the Army endorsing Harris. Those are retired military and mostly former national security leaders, and they belong to the National Security Leadership organization. Current military officers are actually prohibited from directly engaging in politics to that extent.

**RINOs and Democrats aligned. Nothing new here. Folks support their own.

Trump's ignorance isn't that he was informed by uninformed military, but rather that he was impatient and famously never read reports much longer than a single page, and often needed a verbal presentation with lots of graphical aids to understand more complex topics, and that often didn't work.

**:Heads up. CEOs and executives do not have the time or patience to read a 300 page document. They need a summarise version and in meetings, presentations. You insult the intelligence of those on this forum that the great US military with top of the line technology cannot provide not only a summarised version of 3 lb document but cannot present a 'verbal presentation with lots of graphical aids' to break down and 'understand more complex topics' in briefings with the President. 'Never read reports much longer than a single page'....lol. smh...

In 2019, Time reported on the conflicting accounts between Trump and the national intelligence organizations: In the wake of President Donald Trump’s renewed attacks on the U.S. intelligence community this week, senior intelligence briefers are breaking two years of silence to warn that the President is endangering American security with what they say is a stubborn disregard for their assessments.

** Sound like a bunch of cry babies. The military is there to work with what is handed to them. Not to engage in complaints. Trump is a businessman not a career politician when he entered the WH, therefore his outlook was thru the lens of business not politics. Nor will he be the first or last President to stubbornly disregard the military assessments. Military is in the business of war. Anyone is against American security when one goes against America bombing up the whole world.

Lastly, while trump didn't officially start any new wars, he wasn't peaceful. He broke up the Iran nuclear deal and ordered a military strike on the Iranian general Qasem Soleiamani, and when "negotiating" the withdrawal from Afghanistan, he released 5,000 Taliban combatants. Iran is much further along toward building nuclear weapons now than ever before, and the Afghan Provisional Authority was never even in on the negotiations. That kind of short-sightedness deserves all the alarm we see now.


** And why did 45th broke up the Iran nuclear deal? And why did he ordered a military strike on the Iranian general Qaem Soleiamani? Was that not based on intelligence reports? The same cliché of folks who said 'that the President is endangering American security with what they say is a stubborn disregard for their assessments?

With no evidence to show the commander was planning an attack on the lives of 500 Americans and for Iran to retaliate, injuring 100 America soldiers with traumatic brain injuries? The war mongers needed to start the war between US and Iran under Trump. They are getting their chance under Biden.

** 'Iran is much further along toward building nuclear weapons now than ever before....' Did u even read this before posting it?

no photo

Unknow

Sat 10/12/24 05:07 PM


You seems to be very obsessed about tax breaks/cuts for rich folks under a Republician government. The opposite is true. Rich folks and corporations get richer under a Democratic government because of the policies that seems to benefits the working class but actually benefits the upper class. Besides the two parties are returning to their original roots. Republican - working class , Democrats - rich class.


Facts have no place here !!! LOL
no photo

Amber

Sat 10/12/24 06:27 PM

You're concerned about the country's direction, particularly regarding the economy, border security, taxes, and crime. You feel that policy outcomes matter more than party labels and worry about leadership in national security and foreign policy, especially questioning Kamala Harris' ability to handle global conflicts like WW3. You're seeking leadership that aligns with your values and goals for the nation's future.
Bart's photo

Bart

Sun 10/13/24 05:18 AM


You're concerned about the country's direction, particularly regarding the economy, border security, taxes, and crime. You feel that policy outcomes matter more than party labels and worry about leadership in national security and foreign policy, especially questioning Kamala Harris' ability to handle global conflicts like WW3. You're seeking leadership that aligns with your values and goals for the nation's future.

Not so much. Most Americans are seeking the days when they could afford to put money up for that rainy day. Guess what, that rainy day has been drowning us for the last 4 years with Biden / Harris administration.. You can ignore anything Trump might say or imply but you can’t ignore paying 20% more for groceries or millions of illegals , unvetted at that, that are hurting our economy , making it even worse than Biden/Harris have hurt it… What has Kamala done to make you think she has the ability to handle global conflicts? She can’t even answer a question about what her policies would be or how she would implement them..
Edited by Bart on Sun 10/13/24 05:21 AM
Toodygirl5's photo

Toodygirl5

Wed 11/06/24 05:13 AM






https://www.newsmax.com/us/donald-trump-president-victory/2024/11/06/id/1186904/



All Main Battleground states!