Cry and deflect little brainless man. Kamala voters are the dumbest asshats on the planet.
The brainless "imminent threat" canard Democrats keep bleating about.
- Thread starter Truth Detector
- Start date
What we can see are Kamala voters illustrating how stupid and ignorant they are.
Cry little leftist lying brainless man.
Most of the words you post are examples of retarded looks like.The first 3 words of TD'S second sentence is a confession.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
And as the objective, honest and mature reader can clearly see, old TD is just another maga blowhard trying to bluff his way pass his inability to debate/defend/prove his assertions. I leave him to his folly as...Yeah, sure.
Troll #25 wasn't facts; it was nothing more than a whiny rant you laughably brainless halfwit.
Good lord, buy some self-awareness you whiny brain dead twat.
I am amused that you think your posts are intellectual. But alas, you're a lying leftist dumbass that lacks anything remotely connected to common sense or intelligence.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Wow! I see you've got 12 year olds ghost writing for you again! A pity.Most of the words you post are examples of retarded looks like.
As most can see, you're a brainless whiny little leftist retard on steroids.And as the objective, honest and mature reader can clearly see, old TD is just another maga blowhard trying to bluff his way pass his inability to debate/defend/prove his assertions. I leave him to his folly as...Yeah, sure.
Troll #25 wasn't facts; it was nothing more than a whiny rant you laughably brainless halfwit.
Good lord, buy some self-awareness you whiny brain dead twat.
Wow, you think your brainless trolling posts are a sign of intelligence and funny.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Posts # 25 and #30 says it all, dear readers. I don't need our resident maga mook TD to concede a logical, fact based point. I gave him a challenge, he failed to meet it, and then just repeats his childish memes and schoolyard retorts. He's done. If he decides to actually debate here or anywhere else, I'll respond.Wow, you think your brainless trolling posts are a sign of intelligence and funny.
All those posts say is what a whiny, mentally deranged retard you can be. You really are too stupid to form a coherent argument or response.
Grim Reaper
Chief Exit Officer (CEO)
Syria (2014–2017)
- Obama authorized airstrikes against ISIS, not the Syrian government.
- Legal basis: 2001 AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force).
- Not justified as an “imminent threat to the U.S.” but as counterterrorism.
- Department of Defense briefings
- Congressional Research Service (CRS)
Libya (2011)
- Obama authorized airstrikes under NATO to enforce a UN resolution.
- Justification: humanitarian intervention, not imminent threat to the U.S.
- UN Security Council Resolution 1973
- CRS Libya Report
Croatia
- No U.S. bombing of Croatia occurred under Obama or any president.
- NATO operational records
- U.S. Department of Defense archives
A. Nazis did not exist in WWI
- The Nazi Party was founded in 1920, after WWI.
B. The Lusitania was sunk by the Imperial German Navy (1915)
- Not Nazis.
- Not during U.S. involvement in WWI.
C. The U.S. entered WWI in 1917
- President: Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat.
- Wilson campaigned on neutrality but entered the war after:
- German unrestricted submarine warfare
- The Zimmermann Telegram
- National WWI Museum
- U.S. State Department Office of the Historian
A. FDR (a Democrat) was pushing for aid to Europe long before Pearl Harbor
- Lend‑Lease Act (1941)
- Destroyers‑for‑Bases deal (1940)
- “Arsenal of Democracy” speech (1940)
B. The U.S. entered WWII because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor
- Germany declared war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor.
- FDR Presidential Library
- U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command
- President Truman (Democrat) entered the Korean War under UN authority, not a congressional declaration.
- This is historically accurate.
- Truman Library
- UN Security Council Resolution 83
True:
- Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson all escalated involvement.
- Johnson (Democrat) massively escalated U.S. troop presence.
False:
- Eisenhower (Republican) also escalated involvement.
- Nixon (Republican) expanded the war into Cambodia and Laos.
Legal basis:
- Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (1964) — passed by Congress, not a declaration of war.
- Pentagon Papers
- CRS Vietnam War Timeline
This is not a factual claim — it’s a political opinion.Historical analysis requires:
- Evidence
- Context
- Bipartisan accountability
- Entered wars
- Opposed wars
- Supported interventions
- Opposed interventions
The post uses classic partisan narrative construction:1. Selective history
- Leaves out Republican-led interventions (Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, Yemen, Somalia, etc.).
- Leaves out bipartisan votes.
2. Factual errors
- “Nazi subs” in WWI
- “Obama bombed Croatia”
- Misrepresenting FDR’s WWII stance
3. Causal leaps
- Claims Democrats oppose wars until attacked — contradicted by historical record.
4. Emotional language
- “Idiots,” “moronic,” “incompetence,” “lying”
- These are rhetorical, not factual.
5. One-sided blame
- Ignores Republican presidents who also entered wars without declarations.
Most of the claims are historically inaccurate or misleading. A few contain partial truths but are framed in a way that distorts the historical record.
AI dogma peddler at it again. But hey, I get it, you can't think for yourself. That would require a brain.
Syria (2014–2017)
Sources:
- Obama authorized airstrikes against ISIS, not the Syrian government.
- Legal basis: 2001 AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force).
- Not justified as an “imminent threat to the U.S.” but as counterterrorism.
- Department of Defense briefings
- Congressional Research Service (CRS)
Libya (2011)
Sources:
- Obama authorized airstrikes under NATO to enforce a UN resolution.
- Justification: humanitarian intervention, not imminent threat to the U.S.
- UN Security Council Resolution 1973
- CRS Libya Report
Croatia
Sources:
- No U.S. bombing of Croatia occurred under Obama or any president.
Verdict: The “Croatia” claim is factually false.
- NATO operational records
- U.S. Department of Defense archives
A. Nazis did not exist in WWI
- The Nazi Party was founded in 1920, after WWI.
B. The Lusitania was sunk by the Imperial German Navy (1915)
- Not Nazis.
- Not during U.S. involvement in WWI.
C. The U.S. entered WWI in 1917
Sources:
- President: Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat.
- Wilson campaigned on neutrality but entered the war after:
- German unrestricted submarine warfare
- The Zimmermann Telegram
Verdict: This claim is historically incorrect.
- National WWI Museum
- U.S. State Department Office of the Historian
A. FDR (a Democrat) was pushing for aid to Europe long before Pearl Harbor
- Lend‑Lease Act (1941)
- Destroyers‑for‑Bases deal (1940)
- “Arsenal of Democracy” speech (1940)
B. The U.S. entered WWII because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor
Sources:
- Germany declared war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor.
Verdict: Democrats did not argue “Europe’s problem.”FDR was one of the strongest anti‑Nazi voices in the world.
- FDR Presidential Library
- U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command
Sources:
- President Truman (Democrat) entered the Korean War under UN authority, not a congressional declaration.
- This is historically accurate.
Verdict: Correct on the procedural point.
- Truman Library
- UN Security Council Resolution 83
True:
- Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson all escalated involvement.
- Johnson (Democrat) massively escalated U.S. troop presence.
False:
- Eisenhower (Republican) also escalated involvement.
- Nixon (Republican) expanded the war into Cambodia and Laos.
Legal basis:
Sources:
- Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (1964) — passed by Congress, not a declaration of war.
Verdict: Oversimplified and selectively framed.
- Pentagon Papers
- CRS Vietnam War Timeline
This is not a factual claim — it’s a political opinion.
Historical analysis requires:
Both parties have:
- Evidence
- Context
- Bipartisan accountability
This is not a one‑party pattern.
- Entered wars
- Opposed wars
- Supported interventions
- Opposed interventions
The post uses classic partisan narrative construction:
1. Selective history
- Leaves out Republican-led interventions (Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, Yemen, Somalia, etc.).
- Leaves out bipartisan votes.
2. Factual errors
- “Nazi subs” in WWI
- “Obama bombed Croatia”
- Misrepresenting FDR’s WWII stance
3. Causal leaps
- Claims Democrats oppose wars until attacked — contradicted by historical record.
4. Emotional language
- “Idiots,” “moronic,” “incompetence,” “lying”
- These are rhetorical, not factual.
5. One-sided blame
- Ignores Republican presidents who also entered wars without declarations.
Most of the claims are historically inaccurate or misleading. A few contain partial truths but are framed in a way that distorts the historical record.
Grim Reaper
Chief Exit Officer (CEO)
You keep yelling AI dogma like it’s a spell that makes facts disappear. But let’s be honest, the only thing you’ve debunked today is your own reading comprehension. If evidence feels like an attack, that’s not my problem. That’s your immune system rejecting reality.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Facts mean nothing to maga mooks like TD. He'll just move the goal post or regurgitate his blather ad nausea and personally attack you. T.D.= Troll Dummy
Syria (2014–2017)
Sources:
- Obama authorized airstrikes against ISIS, not the Syrian government.
- Legal basis: 2001 AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force).
- Not justified as an “imminent threat to the U.S.” but as counterterrorism.
- Department of Defense briefings
- Congressional Research Service (CRS)
Libya (2011)
Sources:
- Obama authorized airstrikes under NATO to enforce a UN resolution.
- Justification: humanitarian intervention, not imminent threat to the U.S.
- UN Security Council Resolution 1973
- CRS Libya Report
Croatia
Sources:
- No U.S. bombing of Croatia occurred under Obama or any president.
Verdict: The “Croatia” claim is factually false.
- NATO operational records
- U.S. Department of Defense archives
A. Nazis did not exist in WWI
- The Nazi Party was founded in 1920, after WWI.
B. The Lusitania was sunk by the Imperial German Navy (1915)
- Not Nazis.
- Not during U.S. involvement in WWI.
C. The U.S. entered WWI in 1917
Sources:
- President: Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat.
- Wilson campaigned on neutrality but entered the war after:
- German unrestricted submarine warfare
- The Zimmermann Telegram
Verdict: This claim is historically incorrect.
- National WWI Museum
- U.S. State Department Office of the Historian
A. FDR (a Democrat) was pushing for aid to Europe long before Pearl Harbor
- Lend‑Lease Act (1941)
- Destroyers‑for‑Bases deal (1940)
- “Arsenal of Democracy” speech (1940)
B. The U.S. entered WWII because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor
Sources:
- Germany declared war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor.
Verdict: Democrats did not argue “Europe’s problem.”FDR was one of the strongest anti‑Nazi voices in the world.
- FDR Presidential Library
- U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command
Sources:
- President Truman (Democrat) entered the Korean War under UN authority, not a congressional declaration.
- This is historically accurate.
Verdict: Correct on the procedural point.
- Truman Library
- UN Security Council Resolution 83
True:
- Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson all escalated involvement.
- Johnson (Democrat) massively escalated U.S. troop presence.
False:
- Eisenhower (Republican) also escalated involvement.
- Nixon (Republican) expanded the war into Cambodia and Laos.
Legal basis:
Sources:
- Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (1964) — passed by Congress, not a declaration of war.
Verdict: Oversimplified and selectively framed.
- Pentagon Papers
- CRS Vietnam War Timeline
This is not a factual claim — it’s a political opinion.
Historical analysis requires:
Both parties have:
- Evidence
- Context
- Bipartisan accountability
This is not a one‑party pattern.
- Entered wars
- Opposed wars
- Supported interventions
- Opposed interventions
The post uses classic partisan narrative construction:
1. Selective history
- Leaves out Republican-led interventions (Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, Yemen, Somalia, etc.).
- Leaves out bipartisan votes.
2. Factual errors
- “Nazi subs” in WWI
- “Obama bombed Croatia”
- Misrepresenting FDR’s WWII stance
3. Causal leaps
- Claims Democrats oppose wars until attacked — contradicted by historical record.
4. Emotional language
- “Idiots,” “moronic,” “incompetence,” “lying”
- These are rhetorical, not factual.
5. One-sided blame
- Ignores Republican presidents who also entered wars without declarations.
Most of the claims are historically inaccurate or misleading. A few contain partial truths but are framed in a way that distorts the historical record.
What would a serial lying leftist asshat like yourself know about facts?
I love seeing the board lit up with your threads. Way too often it's nothing but the dumbest JPP libtards plastering the board with the most ridiculous click-bait bullshit they can find. Keep them coming, lol.
I should also point out the major difference between right-wing 'click-bait' and left-wing 'click-bait', the ones on the right are almost always accurate using verifiable facts and/or actual sources. The libtards can't counter the claims with anything other than their hurt feelings and delusions.
The left's click-bait is almost always full of either outright lies or their favorite, lies through omission. We all know how they roll. My point is every single post the libtards pollute the board with are easily picked apart destroying the narrative the idiots just swallowed whole without a single thought. I'm wrong libtards? Give me a link to any story from a left-wing outlet you think is solid and I'll prove it.
Thank you! You called it correct 100%
Of course, not a single libtard has provided a single story they think is solid enough to withstand a little scrutiny from anyone outside their safe spaces. They can't pretend they didn't see the challenge. because a few of the morons I'm talking about definitely following me around and read every post. How do I know? They tell me how they feel about the posts all the time.
I'm dead serious. There isn't a single story written or a single report on libtard media shows that isn't full of lies and or delusions, not one, ever. Again libtards, if I'm wrong give me one that you think is solid, then I'll prove it to you.
Crickets. Anyways, thank again.