We have a president who cannot be trusted with classified info
Nothing surprising here - we’ve known this since he outed the Israeli agent in ISIS, and then last week tweeted an iPhone photo of a spy satellite image.
And it’s not illegal - the president gets to determine what is classified.
He is just untrustworthy. Which is really depressing.
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/us/politics/cia-informant-russia.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
Replies to: We have a president who cannot be trusted with classified info
Fake News.
(no message)
Fake President
(no message)
Fake poster
(no message)
TRUMP is bringing back incandescent bulbs, rolls back light bulb regulations. Thank God
Fluorescent lights produce harmful UV radiation and contain toxic mercury
Thanks, Laura Ingram for his talking point.
(no message)
I looked it up on UTUBE to find out what Trump said
(no message)
How is that good? The new ones last forever. Less hassle. Less trash.
(no message)
You break them, your house is contaminated with mercury. At least LEDs are replacing them.
(no message)
I’ve had zero problems or breakage and they last forever. They are also supposedly more efficient.
If LED’s give the same performance, I’ll use them. The old incandescent bulbs are outdated and wasteful.
LEDs will last much longer than the Fluouescent-Mercury ones that were mandated initially.
(no message)
Good. I will buy them when these burn out.
None of them have yet. I would have been through ten incandescents by now on some of them.
LEDs also won't spread mercury all over your room if you drop one, or bump into one.
(no message)
CFL light bulbs produce higher levels of radiation as well as the dangers of Mercury
(no message)
I use only one old fluorescent bulb downstairs to use them up that my dad bought.
(no message)
Less trash? Is there a actual problem with too much trash? Has there ever been.
That being said, I love the LEDs. Keep them and incandescents on the market and happy. Relegate the CFLs to the trash bin of history.
Make America Glow Again!
(no message)
Liberals try to claim that Thomas Edison did not invent the light bulb
(no message)
You know who else cannot be trusted? The NY Times
(no message)
Did we elect the NYT to handle our classified information?
If so, that's on the people that voted for the NYT to be the leader of the world.
Clandestine Lehigh.
(no message)
Do we pay them for truthful information?
(no message)
Covert Lehigh.
(no message)
Secret agent Lehigh.
(no message)
Orange is completely untrustworthy. But the insinuation that the extraction was due to him seems
dubious.
I bet even the NYT editor cringed at the sentence, “at least in part...”
But then said, “Ahhhh, what the hell, why not?”
So, Barry had the unredacted intelligence handed to him directly by the head of the CIA in 2016...and did nothing. Which leads one to wonder:
1) was Barry incompetent?
OR
2) was there really not much going on?
Indeed. We have a President who cannot be trusted which country he is supposed to defend.
(no message)
?
(no message)
Quiz:
1) Should the President of the United States seek to protect Russia or the United States?
2) Should the President of the United States seek to protect Saudi Arabia or the United States?
Take your time. Tough questions.
Easy questions. I'm just wondering why you seem to be confused about what Trump is doing.
And you clearly are.
PSA: Please keep your belt(s) fastened if intent on riding this clown car all the way down.
(no message)
Oh, I fastened my seat belt a long time ago...long before Trump came along.
There is no were else to go, so I'm riding this country all the way down.
Same accusations made against Obama. The defense that "he's the president" sufficed for you then.
(no message)
The only thing stupider than whataboutism is failed whataboutism
Obama could handle secrets.
So could every other president up to this point.
Oh Lordy. You bots are unreal.
(no message)
Chris is the one who came up with that defense.
(no message)
No.
As I said in the original post, the president cannot be guilty of illegally leaking classified info. By definition.
But that is different from having the intel community afraid of what formally classified info he will blurt out.
Yes. We aren't actually disagreeing on principles. Just politics.
(no message)
You are incapable of understanding this, apparently.
Didn’t think this was too hard.
It's not hard. I understand perfectly.
(no message)
No, both. Stop inventing to suit your purpose.
(no message)