Terror leaders now fleeing, in hiding, because of Trump's Soleimani strike

Terrorists who sow fear are now living in fear themselves after the precision drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, according to a new report.

https://www.wnd.com/2020/01/terror-leade...nGW0m1Uz8M

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

Terror leaders now fleeing, in hiding, because of Trump's Soleimani strike

Terrorists who sow fear are now living in fear themselves after the precision drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, according to a new report.

https://www.wnd.com/2020/01/terror-leade...nGW0m1Uz8M

Don't you think it's a little far fetched that anyone would know what terrorist leaders are doing, what they are thinking, whether they are hiding in new places or not?

---

I think they tried to leave Iran as "Canadians" but didn't quite make it.

---

Terror leaders now fleeing, in hiding, because of Trump's Soleimani strike

Terrorists who sow fear are now living in fear themselves after the precision drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, according to a new report.

https://www.wnd.com/2020/01/terror-leade...nGW0m1Uz8M

Don't you think it's a little far fetched that anyone would know what terrorist leaders are doing, what they are thinking, whether they are hiding in new places or not?

How do you think they know where to target them with air strikes?

It's called intelligence.

Radio chatter, informants, surveillance. They have plenty of ways to get an idea of what these people are doing.

---

Terror leaders now fleeing, in hiding, because of Trump's Soleimani strike

Terrorists who sow fear are now living in fear themselves after the precision drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, according to a new report.

https://www.wnd.com/2020/01/terror-leade...nGW0m1Uz8M

Don't you think it's a little far fetched that anyone would know what terrorist leaders are doing, what they are thinking, whether they are hiding in new places or not?

Does the CIA ring a bell? That's their job.

---

Don't you think it's a little far fetched that anyone would know what terrorist leaders are doing, what they are thinking, whether they are hiding in new places or not?

Does the CIA ring a bell? That's their job.

The same CIA (and every other intelligence agency) that is not believed by many when they said Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump?

I guess it depends on what someone wants to believe.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Does the CIA ring a bell? That's their job.

The same CIA (and every other intelligence agency) that is not believed by many when they said Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump?

I guess it depends on what someone wants to believe.

It doesn't take any intelligence to state that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump. They also interfered in the 2016 election to help Hillary. The goal was to foment rebellion, and the Left has bought into it hook, line, and sinker.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

The same CIA (and every other intelligence agency) that is not believed by many when they said Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump?

I guess it depends on what someone wants to believe.

It doesn't take any intelligence to state that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump. They also interfered in the 2016 election to help Hillary. The goal was to foment rebellion, and the Left has bought into it hook, line, and sinker.

1) Russia definitely helped Trump.  And it was reasonable to suspect that Trump or someone working for Trump was trying to coordinate that, especially with Manafort and Flynn in Trump's orbit. Investigations were started to ferret that out, not to "spy" on Trump.

2) Russia only wanted to hurt Hillary.  They wanted to help Bernie, though.  Tell me one pro-Hillary thing Russia did.  After Bernie was out, Russia's pro-left-wing agitprop stopped

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Let me ask a stupid question. I keep tabs on politics. But it’s not my life. What did Russia do to help Trump? Because I don’t recall being swayed to vote for Trump over the Succubus

---

Let me ask a stupid question.  I keep tabs on politics.  But it’s not my life.  What did Russia do to help Trump?  Because I don’t recall being swayed to vote for Trump over the Succubus

Most people weren't swayed by Russia.
Russia got false or exaggerated divisive stories to go viral on Facebook and especially Twitter.
They also hacked Hillary's campaign managers' email and tried to time the release of those emails to cause maximum embarrassment for Hillary. This was clever because the authentic but superficial Hillary campaign emails got blurred in peoples' minds with the never found but very important Hillary secretary of state emails.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Let me ask a stupid question.  I keep tabs on politics.  But it’s not my life.  What did Russia do to help Trump?  Because I don’t recall being swayed to vote for Trump over the Succubus

Most people weren't swayed by Russia.
Russia got false or exaggerated divisive stories to go viral on Facebook and especially Twitter.
They also hacked Hillary's campaign managers' email and tried to time the release of those emails to cause maximum embarrassment for Hillary. This was clever because the authentic but superficial Hillary campaign emails got blurred in peoples' minds with the never found but very important Hillary secretary of state emails.

None of that swayed my opinion.  Hillary is corrupt. She has no morals.   She’ll suicide anyone that disagrees with her.   I more so feel bad for those that actually voted for her knowing she is the scum of the earth.   I would’ve voted for a foreign born <35 yr old person that’s not even eligible for presidency over her. But luckily we had Trump running against her.  We’re blessed. Don’t you think?

---

Most people weren't swayed by Russia.
Russia got false or exaggerated divisive stories to go viral on Facebook and especially Twitter.
They also hacked Hillary's campaign managers' email and tried to time the release of those emails to cause maximum embarrassment for Hillary. This was clever because the authentic but superficial Hillary campaign emails got blurred in peoples' minds with the never found but very important Hillary secretary of state emails.

None of that swayed my opinion.  Hillary is corrupt. She has no morals.   She’ll kill anyone that disagrees with her.   I more so feel bad for those that actually voted for her knowing she is the scum of the earth.   I would’ve voted for a foreign born <35 yr old person that’s not even eligible for presidency over her. But luckily we had Trump running against her.  We’re blessed. Don’t you think?

It's good that none of it swayed your opinion. None of it swayed mine either. but I did have some friends sharing some of this obvious propaganda on Facebook, and it makes me wonder.
But I'm not grateful for Trump. Hillary and Trump were both the worst candidates in a generation. Maybe a century.
Each of them would have run us further and faster down the road from a  limited government with division of powers and checks and balances, and towards an unlimited government whose only check is the opposing party.  Senators should care more about the prerogatives of the Senate than they care about who wins the white house in the next election. But that's not where we live anymore. The Senate is no longer a check when they're the same party as the president. If they're a different party, they are a check, but really it's the other party who is a check.
Once the only check is the other party, the next step after that is one of the two parties holds power long enough to mess with elections, and keep the other party from ever winning one, and we become a single-party unlimited government like the Roman empire or 20th Century Mexico.
a good president would be trying to reverse this trend by being less personally divisive and working to reform election laws so that third parties and independents can play a bigger role.
Hillary would have tried to not be divisive, but she's naturally a divisive person.  Trump is divisive on purpose.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

None of that swayed my opinion.  Hillary is corrupt. She has no morals.   She’ll kill anyone that disagrees with her.   I more so feel bad for those that actually voted for her knowing she is the scum of the earth.   I would’ve voted for a foreign born <35 yr old person that’s not even eligible for presidency over her. But luckily we had Trump running against her.  We’re blessed. Don’t you think?

Nah, they were both the worst candidates in a generation.
Each of them would have run us further and faster down the road from a  limited government with division of powers and checks and balances, and towards an unlimited government whose only check is the opposing party.  Senators should care more about the prerogatives of the Senate than they care about who wins the white house in the next election. But that's not where we live anymore. The Senate is no longer a check if they're the same party as the president. If they're a different party, they are a check, but really it's the other party who is a check.
Once the only check is the other party, the next step after that is one of the two parties holds power long enough to mess with elections, and keep the other party from ever winning one, and we become a single-party unlimited government like the Roman empire or 20th Century Mexico.
a good president would be trying to reverse this trend by being less personally divisive and working to reform election laws so that third parties can play a bigger role.
Hillary would have tried to not be divisive, but she's naturally a divisive person.  Trump is divisive on purpose.

Well, here’s to hoping the republicans win the house, keep the senate and Trump gets re-elected.  But, that’s just coming from me.  Just a guy with morals that wants this country to succeed.  Then maybe we wouldn’t have this bogus impeachment going on solely because Trump is....awesome???? Or a republican?   Not really sure why this “trial” is going on to be honest.  Maybe just because the Dems are butthurt.  That’s pretty much what I’m getting out of it.

---

It doesn't take any intelligence to state that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump. They also interfered in the 2016 election to help Hillary. The goal was to foment rebellion, and the Left has bought into it hook, line, and sinker.

1) Russia definitely helped Trump.  And it was reasonable to suspect that Trump or someone working for Trump was trying to coordinate that, especially with Manafort and Flynn in Trump's orbit. Investigations were started to ferret that out, not to "spy" on Trump.

2) Russia only wanted to hurt Hillary.  They wanted to help Bernie, though.  Tell me one pro-Hillary thing Russia did.  After Bernie was out, Russia's pro-left-wing agitprop stopped

1. Funny though how they quickly evolved to spy on Trump.

2. They didn't want to hurt Hillary. To even suggest that shows a total lack of intelligence. Putin owned Hillary. He probably had hard evidence of a quid pro quo on the uranium deal, and he gave Bill $500,000 for a 10 minute "speech." Not only that, federal lands that were open to oil production by Trump would not have happened under Hillary. US oil production is a major drain on the value of Russia's oil. Then there's the US missile defense in Poland. Hillary bought into the Global Warming scam, with the effect of proposed "solutions" crippling the US economy, while Trump pull us out of the Paris treaty accord. Probably lot's more reason for Putin to prefer Hillary that I can't think of.

Russia posted anti-Trump posts on Facebook as well as anti-Hillary posts. The goal was to foment hatred in the US, not to elect Trump who every expert had predicted had no chance. 

I agree that Bernie would have been even better for Putin since he might have shut down all fracking, imposed CO2 limits, drove most of the remaining businesses overseas through taxes and regulations and sped up the destruction of the US economy.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

None of that swayed my opinion.  Hillary is corrupt. She has no morals.   She’ll kill anyone that disagrees with her.   I more so feel bad for those that actually voted for her knowing she is the scum of the earth.   I would’ve voted for a foreign born <35 yr old person that’s not even eligible for presidency over her. But luckily we had Trump running against her.  We’re blessed. Don’t you think?

Nah, they were both the worst candidates in a generation.
Each of them would have run us further and faster down the road from a  limited government with division of powers and checks and balances, and towards an unlimited government whose only check is the opposing party.  Senators should care more about the prerogatives of the Senate than they care about who wins the white house in the next election. But that's not where we live anymore. The Senate is no longer a check if they're the same party as the president. If they're a different party, they are a check, but really it's the other party who is a check.
Once the only check is the other party, the next step after that is one of the two parties holds power long enough to mess with elections, and keep the other party from ever winning one, and we become a single-party unlimited government like the Roman empire or 20th Century Mexico.
a good president would be trying to reverse this trend by being less personally divisive and working to reform election laws so that third parties can play a bigger role.
Hillary would have tried to not be divisive, but she's naturally a divisive person.  Trump is divisive on purpose.

Idiotic!

Trump has done nothing to move the country toward "unlimited government." He has cut thousands of regulations that were not passed by congress. He cut taxes, giving the money back to the people. He has started no new wars (unlike his thee predecessors) and is winding down the ones he inherited. He has created no new government programs (also unlike his predecessors), except spinning the Space Force off of the Air Force which is a net zero. He supports gun rights, free speech, and freedom of religion while his opponents are running rampant over the Bill of Rights.

I guess you will claim that because #orangemanbad people like you are more likely to vote for the blame America first crowd.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Democratic nominee new slogan for 2020: make America crappy again

---

Democratic nominee new slogan for 2020: make America crappy again

+1

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

1) Russia definitely helped Trump.  And it was reasonable to suspect that Trump or someone working for Trump was trying to coordinate that, especially with Manafort and Flynn in Trump's orbit. Investigations were started to ferret that out, not to "spy" on Trump.

2) Russia only wanted to hurt Hillary.  They wanted to help Bernie, though.  Tell me one pro-Hillary thing Russia did.  After Bernie was out, Russia's pro-left-wing agitprop stopped

1. Funny though how they quickly evolved to spy on Trump.

2. They didn't want to hurt Hillary. To even suggest that shows a total lack of intelligence. Putin owned Hillary. He probably had hard evidence of a quid pro quo on the uranium deal, and he gave Bill $500,000 for a 10 minute "speech." Not only that, federal lands that were open to oil production by Trump would not have happened under Hillary. US oil production is a major drain on the value of Russia's oil. Then there's the US missile defense in Poland. Hillary bought into the Global Warming scam, with the effect of proposed "solutions" crippling the US economy, while Trump pull us out of the Paris treaty accord. Probably lot's more reason for Putin to prefer Hillary that I can't think of.

Russia posted anti-Trump posts on Facebook as well as anti-Hillary posts. The goal was to foment hatred in the US, not to elect Trump who every expert had predicted had no chance. 

I agree that Bernie would have been even better for Putin since he might have shut down all fracking, imposed CO2 limits, drove most of the remaining businesses overseas through taxes and regulations and sped up the destruction of the US economy.

Please show me one example of Russia helping Hillary specifically, the way they helped Trump. I agree they put out some pro BLM and other liberal friendly stuff, but it was meant to take people who favor those causes to dislike Hillary.
If we reduce or stop fracking, that increases oil prices, so that's good for Russia.  So that may be one reason for them liking Bernie. 
But anti-CO2 regs or taxes reduce oil prices and are bad for Russia. If we reduce our consumption of oil, that's bad for Russia.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Nah, they were both the worst candidates in a generation.
Each of them would have run us further and faster down the road from a  limited government with division of powers and checks and balances, and towards an unlimited government whose only check is the opposing party.  Senators should care more about the prerogatives of the Senate than they care about who wins the white house in the next election. But that's not where we live anymore. The Senate is no longer a check if they're the same party as the president. If they're a different party, they are a check, but really it's the other party who is a check.
Once the only check is the other party, the next step after that is one of the two parties holds power long enough to mess with elections, and keep the other party from ever winning one, and we become a single-party unlimited government like the Roman empire or 20th Century Mexico.
a good president would be trying to reverse this trend by being less personally divisive and working to reform election laws so that third parties can play a bigger role.
Hillary would have tried to not be divisive, but she's naturally a divisive person.  Trump is divisive on purpose.

Idiotic!

Trump has done nothing to move the country toward "unlimited government." He has cut thousands of regulations that were not passed by congress. He cut taxes, giving the money back to the people. He has started no new wars (unlike his thee predecessors) and is winding down the ones he inherited. He has created no new government programs (also unlike his predecessors), except spinning the Space Force off of the Air Force which is a net zero. He supports gun rights, free speech, and freedom of religion while his opponents are running rampant over the Bill of Rights.

I guess you will claim that because #orangemanbad people like you are more likely to vote for the blame America first crowd.

I like gun rights, freedom of speech and freedom of religion too. Really I prefer the Republicans for a lot of reasons.  I just think we all need to stop investing so much hope and agency into these once every four years elections.  Make the House great again.  Make State Legislatures great again.  Make the Senate great again.  Debate in the open.  Cut deals with each other.  Etc.

Removing Trump at this juncture for these reasons would certainly make the House and the Senate great again.  It would show that they are independent centers of power that care about more than just party labels, and that they really care about making elections fair.

Otherwise we're just greasing the tracks for the President to be a dictator.  Maybe not this President, but one coming soon, unless we reverse these trends.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

1. Funny though how they quickly evolved to spy on Trump.

2. They didn't want to hurt Hillary. To even suggest that shows a total lack of intelligence. Putin owned Hillary. He probably had hard evidence of a quid pro quo on the uranium deal, and he gave Bill $500,000 for a 10 minute "speech." Not only that, federal lands that were open to oil production by Trump would not have happened under Hillary. US oil production is a major drain on the value of Russia's oil. Then there's the US missile defense in Poland. Hillary bought into the Global Warming scam, with the effect of proposed "solutions" crippling the US economy, while Trump pull us out of the Paris treaty accord. Probably lot's more reason for Putin to prefer Hillary that I can't think of.

Russia posted anti-Trump posts on Facebook as well as anti-Hillary posts. The goal was to foment hatred in the US, not to elect Trump who every expert had predicted had no chance. 

I agree that Bernie would have been even better for Putin since he might have shut down all fracking, imposed CO2 limits, drove most of the remaining businesses overseas through taxes and regulations and sped up the destruction of the US economy.

Please show me one example of Russia helping Hillary specifically, the way they helped Trump. I agree they put out some pro BLM and other liberal friendly stuff, but it was meant to take people who favor those causes to dislike Hillary.
If we reduce or stop fracking, that increases oil prices, so that's good for Russia.  So that may be one reason for them liking Bernie. 
But anti-CO2 regs or taxes reduce oil prices and are bad for Russia. If we reduce our consumption of oil, that's bad for Russia.

I'm not an expert in deciding which Facebook posts come from where. I couldn't show you a post that favored Trump either. But I saw plenty of anti-Trump posts, and I doubt that Russia was never among the creators.

Hurting the US economy helps Russia. Anti-CO2 regs hurt the US economy. They don't have much effect on oil prices, because they mainly affect electrical generation. You can't be that dense, can you?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"