Yea...it was rhetorical.

But since you brought it up: no, you didnt censor yourself. Censoring yourself implies having control over what you say. Going back and editing what you already put out there isnt censoring yourself, its a poor reactive attempt at fixing a careless error. There is a significant difference between the two. And I believe you to have far less control over your emotions and replies online than you believe yourself to have. Perhaps its different in person or in your practice, yet online, in this forum, you have shown time and time again that your emotions get the best of you. I have held, and vocalized this belief many a time. What you type once you hit “reply” is out there, permanently. Whether you called someone names, imply notions, fabricate something, or edit replies...they are out there.

I could not care leas whether you think my opinion isn’t “kind.” Sometimes the truth stings. Perhaps it is more prudent for certain people to think on responses before they hit send, or find the power to limit how much steering their emotions control. Otherwise it looks somewhat sophomoric for a myriad of reasons given posting styles and histories.

I dont need a lesson on cancel culture, your dialogues with a 9th grader, or why Trump supporters have your mind running wild today. Did I mention the previous post was rhetorical? Because nowhere in this thread did I engage you on those talking points. Hence the rhetorical doubleyew tee eff kind of soapbox is she on now.

Sorry to drag this up, but I did previously post about the fact that we don't realy have any information regarding % for and against. And that this number just doesn't mean much without the full picture. With that being said, today there was an article (yes, I know fox blah blah blah), of similar people writing a letter endorsing Trump. Again, this letter doesn't really mean anything either. Just a contrast to the original post. https://www.foxnews.com/...licy-accomplishments

I would be great to see the letter with the names of these politicians, national security advisers, military generals and ambassadors endorsing Trump. I’m interested in reading the exact language of the letter. If you run across it, please share it.

Did you even click on the link velocomp provided?

It is there.

And Rudy Giuliani is one of 70- does he even count in a national security discussion?

---

Suffer Well.

I'll hunt around. I would be interested as well.

I clicked on the link and read the article. I didn’t see the letter there. Did I miss it?

Here is the link: https://www.scribd.com/...eelection#from_embed

Robert Livingston was on there as well. He left congress on good terms. I think the one constant that you'll see when you look at this letter is what party the vast, vast majority, if not all, of the signatures belong. The whole point of the over 500 former military and political people supporting Biden also belong to the same party as this letter. That is a big, huge, yuge, difference.

---

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.

Wow, it is telling the signatories for the letter. Real difference in not only quantity, but quality compared to the letter in support of Biden. Biden was also bi partisan. I think there were more former trump admin officials on the Biden letter than former trump officials on this letter!

This one really scrapes the bottom of the barrel. I mean, they felt the need to put notorious bigot Allen West? Or Micheal "Islam & the modern West are incompatible...Only an insane society...would have increased Muslim immigration after 9/11" Anton.

The differences are really telling here.

I guess you know more about those people than I do and of course our opinions are already set in stone. As I stated, this like the other letter really don't mean anything. They don't tell the whole story, but do a good job of validating the positions of the people for or against Trump. That is all.

Anyone currently employed by Trump should not be on that list. That's just supporting your boss.

There's at least one weird error: Amanda E. "Milias" I assume they mean Amanda Milius. Her name is spelled wrong. And they got her title wrong. She is no longer an acting Deputy Secretary of State. She left the Trump administration in March. Maybe they just forgot the "former."

The titles are definitely not consistent. Just very sloppy. Richard T. Higgins is "Former Director Strategic Planning National Security Coun" What is "Coun"?

Also, the body of the letter is filled with lies. It is not trump's diplomacy that funds NATO, they are following the pledge they made under Obama.

The huge difference between the different leaders is that the letter for Biden is signed by GOP officials. The letter for trump is also signed by GOP officials.

I would be very interested to see if there is a letter signed by democratic officials who are pro trump.

So you don't see any value in evaluating the letters? You just say they must be equal, because you have decided they are?

You are making this for or against trump, when that is not what this is about. This is about national security. That is what the Biden letter was about. The Biden letter had hundreds of experienced and respected national security experts. This letter has Allen West and Rudy. It is totally possible to evaluate the value of these letters outside being for or against trump.

It does sort of smack of Trump hearing about it and some junior staffer getting assigned to "make one of those for us."

It is totally about for or against Trump or Biden. And based upon one's weighting of the signatories one will decide which endorsements matter. Unfortunately 99% of people know very few of the names anyway. I can tell you there are still many people who think Rudy is awsome, the savior of NY after 9/11 (not me FYI). I recognize the names of many of the people, but couldn't tell you if they are good or bad or where they rank in knowledge or importance. And that is my point. I do follow politics, but meh, another endorsement doesn't mean much to me. I work 50-60 hours a week, have a family, and still like to train, so I'm not one who is going to rush out to go research these folks.

I'm sure Kay will call me a lazy voter. I would call me a normal voter. The below ave. voters may be swayed. And the entrenched voters will say this proves our candidate is the chosen one. The rest of us will say "meh", and keep looking/listening to see of anything the candidates say or do will sway our decision. (Not the pundits, not the media, and not any fanatics on a message board)

I love your description of the spectrum of voters because it’s so different from my own. Are you truly undecided?

If the facts or opinions presented by media, pundits, and random people on message boards don’t carry weight with you, are you having personal conversations with friends, family & neighbors?

I would not say I'm undecided, but I enjoy conversations and learning/listening to those people I trust. Most of my good friends and family lean left or very left. I listen to them and educate myself on topics they bring up so we can talk openly and honestly and factually.

There are 8 maybe 10 people on this forum whose political opinions I respect (both left and right) while the vast majority I believe only want to talk in one direction.

I think it is one of the serious issues these days. Also I think that the spread of nuclear technology and nuclear weapons is a huge problem for national security and the safety of the entire planet. After my last trip to Chernobyl I ordered radiation detector for home use. I found info about best detectors from ecotestgroup and ordered one too. I just want to be calm that my house is safe place