As it turns out, human employees have problems too.

Since when do articles from left aligned media reporting based on unnamed sources meet the bar for treason? These are the same media orgs that relied on bogus information in their reporting about the Steele Dossier. Honestly, how many times are you going to fall for the same crap? The department of Homeland Security denies this memo came from the Trump administration as stated in the article, and yet without even knowing where these conflicting reports came from you are ready to hang him. The truth is you already wanted to, and just needed another daily excuse to be a whiny leftist bitch.

While it's true that meetings between DOJ officials and the White House can be routine, it is premature to conclude that there isn't a connection, especially given the timing and frequency of those meetings. The timing of Colangelo's move, coinciding with high-profile investigations into Trump, is also suspicious which is why the House Judiciary committee expressed interest in it. My last statement was obviously in reference to Trump's opposition trying to directly remove him from ballots, an authoritarian move that was stopped by SCOTUS.

What is breathtaking is the amount of shit you are full of. The FBI did not exonerate Hillary Clinton. They found evidence that laws were likely violated but just lacked clear evidence of intent.

One of Jack Smith's top aides, Jay Bratt was also meeting with White House officials multiple times ahead of the indictment. Matthew Colangelo, the third highest ranking DOJ official moved to help in a prosecution as well. Trump announced his candidacy before the indictments, not the other way around. The cases were sketchy as hell and evaporated as soon as they were of no political use. But I guess you'll lump this into the category of saving Democracy. You know, like trying to remove the opposition from ballots type of democracy.

Nothing says 'not a fascist' like trying to jail your political opponent in an election year.

No, it was 63 deaths (45 combat 18 non hostile) over a span of 4 years, which is an monthly average of 1.31 service member deaths. Biden's disastrous withdrawal saw 13 total deaths over just 7 months, for a monthly average of 1.86 deaths. Biden was also not legally obligated to fulfill Trump's treaty with the Taliban regarding the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Subsequent presidents have the authority to reassess and modify foreign policy decisions made by their predecessors. You aren't just an anonymous coward, you are a dumb ass coward.

I can't help but notice the cowardly anonymous bitch doesn't have any concern for discussion about the service members who died under Biden's disastrous leadership and only wants to focus on whining incessantly about Trump, who by the way was never convicted of rape. The last time another moron claimed that Trump was awarded 15 million, so get fucked. Trump and his administration has done plenty of things I would actually lead in criticizing, but I don't think you make a very compelling argument here that Trump is somehow weak because he didn't continue to escalate in this situation. There is no evidence that proves there was a coverup during his presidency, political statements made on the campaign trail years later aside. Military leadership was aware of precisely what was coming, but there was a communication problem. What kind of conspiracy shit are you on about?

Now you are quoting al jazerra, news for terrorists? Honestly, go fuck yourself. Iran informed his administration about the impending attack and the US took precautions. It wasn't a surprise attack, it was a hey we have to save face here so we are going to shoot you here, lets not let this escalate. The initial report of impact was accurate at the time. The TBIs were diagnosed later. I don't care what terrorist news said some former asswipe said. Farah's statement alone does not constitute strong evidence of a systematic effort by the Trump administration to downplay the incident. If your journalistic standards include uncorroborated hearsay, then that explains in part why you are such a tool. I'm not going to litigate every ridiculous leftist talking point with you. Your TDS is incurable.

Strawman. I never claimed Trump was immune to retaliation or confrontation, but that his deterrence was strong. It took him killing one of the leaders before they would dare to do anything. I didn't define projecting strength as Trump, again you are twisting my words because that is the only thing a weak minded loser like you can do to get the upper hand in a discussion. You are clearly butthurt.

Claims of a cover-up are pure conspiracy theory and none of the victims have even claimed there was a cover-up. When the injuries were identified, they initially gave 23 of them a Purple Heart. Only a portion of them were denied and later reconsidered and then granted a month later, so yeah, you are full of shit. And no, I'm not AI-generated. I'm actually a real person telling you that you are full of shit. The reason it matters is retaliation because even a dumbass knows they had to retaliate for that. They wouldn't have dared to brazenly attack the US without provocation but had to respond because otherwise, they would have looked weak after the assassination. I never claimed that strength completely eliminated all threats. That is a straw man argument. I claimed it was an effective deterrence, and it generally is. You seem to have a lot of one-sided complaints against Trump, which kind of goes with you being full of shit. Sometimes, though, killing bad guys is necessary. The United States has regularly engaged in political assassinations or assassination attempts for longer than I've been alive, and they tried to assassinate Castro so many times it was like a Roadrunner cartoon. Clinton and Obama did as well. Heck, during Iraq, they even had most-wanted Iraqi fucking playing cards. You are full of so much shit it probably defies the laws of physics.

That wasn't my definition of strength; it was an explanation of deterrence, which I clearly stated also relies on strength. I even began my definition of strength with the words "Strength is" to make it easier for you to understand. You are the one who seems to be making a strawman here by misrepresenting my argument and twisting my words, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not being deceptive and are instead just that stupid. Here is my definition of strength once again: "Strength is a concept that goes beyond mental, physical, or numerical superiority. It is rooted in preparation, adaptability, strategic use of resources, and even deception."

Those are some key aspects of strength. However, a leader also needs to be perceived as credible and must have a clear strategic vision. As I already mentioned, adaptability is crucial as well. The concept of strength seems simple enough, but perhaps it is too complex a topic for you? It is also clear that you do not understand what a straw man argument is. I did not attempt to alter your argument in order to refute it. Unsurprisingly, you did not explain where I did because you lack the clarity to do so.

On the contrary, I am firm and confident in my convictions. In communication, if a message fails to be conveyed effectively, the sender bears responsibility for ensuring clarity and understanding. However, when the receiver is intentionally obstinate, the fault lies not with the sender. You are the weak link in this discussion.

That wasn't an instigation, it was retaliatory for the assassination of Soleimani which was of course a rather bold move by Trump in response to Soleimani's involvement in orchestrating attacks against the US. Trump saw no value in continued escalations, as the operational objective was already met. Hindsight of the incident is different because injuries were later assessed after his presidency. If at the time of the incident, any US servicemen were instead killed or assessed to have been injured, I would have supported a proportional military response.

I already explained my definition of strength in the simplest terms. I'm equally unimpressed by your lack of comprehension. In fairness, your head is rather far up your own ass. Bush's perceived weakness was characterized by indecision, incoherence, inconsistency, unpreparedness, and an inability to effectively manage crises. In contrast, projecting strength requires the opposite. Leaders need to manage crises quickly and be coherent, decisive, and well-prepared. I'm not redefining what it means to be a strong leader in order to dismiss counterexamples. I am merely highlighting characteristics that contribute to perceptions of strength and weakness based on observable factors. Also, if it were up your ass, you would know it.

I never suggested you were questioning my affiliation. That was volunteered information because I was trying to narrow the scope of my mindset to terms a dumbass might better understand. I feel like we almost connected, so I'll consider that a success. Strength is a concept that goes beyond mental, physical, or numerical superiority. It is rooted in preparation, adaptability, strategic use of resources, and even deception. A leader can be both weak and dangerous, just like you can be both presumptuous and a douchenozzle.