Posts Made By: James Lacey

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Gee, I guess I should have mentioned me and your wife leaving a motel a long time ago.

Its fun to watch you get SO pissed off and into a frenzy.  

What happened bookkeeper?  Did I stir old memories of things that happened between you and her some time ago?   

Lashing out over and over isn't a good look for you.  

I haven't seen you type so frantically in quite some time trying to defend your past postings.  

Really hit a nerve I see!    

Whenever you accuse someone else of "getting pissed off" and going into a "frenzy," when all of the rest of us can see that is not how the person is reacting, it truly places your grip on reality in the spotlight. In fact, in the spirit of Russ's post in another thread regarding asking ChatGPT to analyze your posts, I'm reasonably sure that ChatGPT would conclude you are projecting your emotions onto JimB to avoid facing your flaws and to maintain a false sense of superiority. In other words, you are upset you can't provoke JimB, because he has far too much emotional control to fall for your provocations, so you have to resort to lying about his response—pretty sad behavior for a supposed adult.

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

Thanks for fixing that time stamp for me. I can't seem to make that work when I copy a link at a certain time.

It's amazing how much more presidential tRump, Davis, and all of MAGA think he is over all those other "loser" presidents.

I used the "Insert a link" option, not the "Insert a YouTube video" option; that is probably the difference.

The way people come to know and trust different "truths" is at the heart of our political divide and polarization. Much of it has to do with the information ecosystem and the sources we choose to trust. For example, I never thought LA was "in flames" or "under attack" from "insurrectionists and paid agitators." What I saw was a clumsy and bungling attempt by ICE and Tom Homan to enforce outdated and impractical immigration laws in a draconian and punitive way. The LA immigrant community is a vital part of the fabric of their community, and going in there with military style, dead-of-night raids to arrest people's family members and community leaders was never going to end well. In my opinion, Trump and Tom Homan contributed to the problem and continued to exacerbate it.

On the other hand, the right-wing MAGA-types think LA is being "invaded" and needs saving from itself via the use of the military. Both sides believe they are being reasonable, but they are too entrenched to consider the other side's viewpoint. And so it goes.

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

Hi Jim,

Yeah, I googled it too.  It wasn't much help. LOL

William is like the anti-Richard. He makes no sense in as few words as possible, and Rich makes no sense in as many words as possible.

Trump has publicly said many times that the ICE raids are a direct challenge to sanctuary cities, and he claims they are harboring undocumented immigrants to rig elections. So, it's obvious his selective enforcement is politically motivated and is intended to demonize Democrats, stoke fear, provoke protests that justify a stronger federal response, and rally his base around a common enemy. I'm sure ICE does carry out raids in cities like San Antonio, TX, but they are not as brazen and politically motivated as the ones in blue states.
.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"At a press conference after the Fed released its latest policy statement, Powell said, “Increases in tariffs this year are likely to push up prices and weigh on economic activity.” He added, however, that the extent of the impact depends on the size and duration of the tariffs. The “pause” Trump put in place on many of the tariffs is set to end on July 9, pending any deals the administration strikes with its trading partners."

Time for Donny to pull a TACO!

https://apnews.com/article/inflation-interest-rates-fed-fa91e7b38ca858ff54f57bc642111188

It all stems from his chaotic, reckless, and impulsive style, which often acts without careful consideration of the impact of his decisions. So, he has to flip-flop back and forth all the time. For example, he recently decided to halt ICE raids on hotels, restaurants, and agricultural workers after being personally lobbied by his Secretary of Agriculture, who brought to his attention the concerns of farmers. Then, just scant days later, he reversed himself again and is now allowing ICE raids to resume in the industries. This whip-lash decision making sure doesn't give you much confidence in his administration to handle something like the Israel-Iran conflict with care and skill.

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

BTW - I'd have no problem with the strikes on Iran if they followed the law.

I'm wondering what a "gorgan" squad is exactly. Maybe Rich meant goon squad? Regardless, it's always amusing to me how he has to project an emotional reaction onto people that isn't there, so that he has something to seethe about himself. I didn't see AOC's responses to the bombing as seething, and she was pretty clear that it was acting without congressional authority that was problematic.

You have to wonder, if Trump had not cancelled the Iranian nuclear deal we had in 2018, whether or not we would even be here. As I recall, Rich and most right-wing Trump supporters applauded Trump's policy at the time, claiming that the nuclear deal was not working, but plenty of people intimately involved in the program said otherwise. I've also read that the deal we have most recently been trying to renegotiate with Iran is essentially the same deal that Trump withdrew from in 2018. So, once again, it appears that a good case can be made that Trump created a problem, attempted to restore things to the way they were so he could claim he had fixed the problem, but made the situation worse. Of course, Iran has made provocative choices since 2018 that got us here too, but it's pretty clear too that Trump's unilateral exit from the original Iranian nuclear deal undermined the diplomacy and inspections that were keeping containment of Iran's atomic goals possible, and now a peaceful resolution is not possible at all considering hostilities are well underway.

By the way, did you see how much Hegseth contributed to the moniker "Trump's bootlicker cabinet" this morning in his press conference with the Joint Chiefs? Oh my! The amount of obsequious ass-kissing that was taking place in Hegseth's opening statement was nauseating. I'm sorry, but from where I sit, all that bootlicking makes them look weak.

Originally Posted by James Brown

I was remembering it right.  Congress last declared war in 1942, and the US military has been pretty active since then.   Not saying that those opposing each war have not raised this issue, they have.   Just saying that for most of the past century a declaration of war has not been sought or granted.

The list of reasons to impeach Trump is longer than your average CVS receipt. Still, the miliatry action against Iran's nuclear facilities is not one of them, despite AOC's political theater on X that some on the right are in a tizzy over. It still seems a bit premature to me to claim that the operation was a complete and total success; the best seen, folks. Even though Trump undoubtedly had someone walk up to him and say, "Sir, you did it faster, smarter, and better than anyone thought possible! Even the fake news can't deny it!" It seems to me that we will have to wait a few weeks for the smoke to clear (no pun intended) and for the fog of war reporting to yield to more accurate and reliable assessments.

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

Gee, do you think you could be more of a condescending asshole? I was just posting the link to the Fox News article and commenting on that.

 
Pick and choose what you want to respond to when it comes to Rich, because engaging with him will never lead to any genuine resolution. He'll move the goalposts and refuse to admit any mistake, ultimately escalating the exchange into personal attacks. I try to be selective, as responding to him only fuels his need for attention and his desire to provoke and elicit an emotional reaction that he can feed off of. Rich doesn't want a valid exchange; he wants to "win" regardless of how pyrrhic his imagined victory is.

Originally Posted by James Brown

For sure.   Also we do not know yet what Iran’s retaliation capacity might be.   I am very supportive of Israel, so for this and other reasons I think the strike was the right strategy, executed perfectly.   This could change a lot of opinions about Trump’s competency….   Unless things go badly….   Time will tell.   

On the political front, Trump’s braggadocio last night was off putting, but not nearly so much as AOC’s bluster, for example.

Aside from green-lighting the operation and possibly limiting its scope, the interesting thing is that Trump almost certainly had nothing to do with the planning and execution. I, too, support whatever it takes to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of Iran, but I do think Trump is partly responsible for us even being where we are at this moment. His boastfulness, arrogance, and peculiar need to undo his predecessors' legacies so he can reimplement them and take credit for them are bizarre. I know that all new presidencies undo some of the previous administration's policies, but Trump takes it to a level that is downright disconnected from reality.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Looking at the big picture, opinions on the effectiveness of the strikes appear equivocal at this time. The Iranians, for their part, claim they vacated the nuclear sites weeks ago. The Israelis maintain they may have removed some of the smaller components prior to any strikes but the larger, more substantial parts, were still there.
The Russians believe what various senators on the intel committee believe: it's still to early for an accurate damage assessment. 

Who's right? For that, we turn to an expert: RICH DAVIS.  He's already opinionated that he's in full concurrence with Faux news game show host "Pete" Hegseth, who, in turn, is in full concurrence Donald John Trump (no coincidences there) and the big, beautiful strikes were "splendid" in every way.

Hmm, who do you agree with?....

I think we can safely assume the enriched uranium that Iran does have was moved long ago. Not only to protect it, but also to prevent an environmental catastrophe if the sites were bombed. The Iranians are not dumb and have known this kind of attack was possible for a long time now. Any equipment left behind is now almost certainly destroyed or entirely unusable. Uranium enrichment is not an easy task, but I'm sure the Iranians can start over from scratch if that's what they have to do. I think that, despite Trump's and Hegseth's bloviations, the deterrence actually achieved here is still highly debatable, and only time will tell. I certainly hope we don't get ourselves into another Middle East quagmire. The amount of blood and fortune we've already poured down that bottomless pit is immeasurable.