Israel and Iran

[Marauder06]

I think you you can be anti war without being anti Trump or anti Israel.

Sure you can. But Joe Kent isn't, and that's what we're talking about.

 

[Topkick]

Sure you can. But Joe Kent isn't, and that's what we're talking about.

Okay, maybe I'm not informed enough about how Kent is anti Trump and anti Israel. I'll do some more research. I didn't see that in his resignation letter.

 

[amlove21]

Source? You know that for a fact, or are you repeating what an AIPAC funded politician said?

That is a hell of an accusation. What is it based on?

The closest you'll get to an objective "Joe Kent is involved in leaking" is his inclusion in the larger SignalGate issue. He engaged in there on behalf of Gabbard, and then defended it iduring his Senate confirmation hearing.

So, if you had strong words about the SignalGate and painted everyone in there with a broad brush as leaking war plans (not saying either of you did), then there's your square to circle on that one. He's either pure as the driven snow, or he leaked classified information once before. Choose your own adventure.

For the record, I was living in Washington state, loved Joe Kent and what he was trying to do there (he lost 2 times), and even if it turns out all the allegations (deep rumors about a canary trap he got caught in and his resignation was an "I quit you can't fire me" sort of deal) turn out to be true- I am glad that a politician was just willing to be honest and say "I dont agree with this admin on this issue, I am out."

Watching everyone on the right just jump in lock step for the character assasination/cancel culture surrounding this one gives me the ick.

 

[ThunderHorse]

"in his recent position" is the entire point (I think) - that I am trying to make with my empty, politically biased, right wing sycophant, sarcasm

He "was" in a position of public trust. Yet, he seemingly waited until he could squeeze "media impact" out of his resignation.

I spent a few days in the service of this nation - MANY of the people on this board spent a few days (maybe more) in the service of this nation.
...and it is just mt two cents that this - "cannot in good conscience support the ongoing thing" - is a bunch of horseshit

I remember having to wear an "Army Values" dog tag around my neck that oddly coincided with Bill Clinton sodomizing a government clerk - but I didn't just get to say "I cannot in good conscience support this ongoing conflict " in Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, or Kuwait becuase I didn't agree with him.
When Obama used a drone strike for the extra judicial killing of an American citizen - were "we the people" all OK with that?
Was everyone that served in Iraq and Afghanistan well after we realized that we had overstayed and outran our headlights - STILL OK- with serving?
...even AFTER it became mainstream that MAAAAYBE we used poor intel as an excuse to initiate hostilities?

How many of us left service because we couldn't "in good conscience" support the POTUS ??
How many of us chose to enter the private sector - free of the military industrial complex - when we realized that the defense industry was just in it for profit ??

"The ongoing war in Iran" didn't happen overnight - he didn't just get "trolled" a few days ago - we dropped bombs on their asses LAST YEAR - and yet, his conscience remained intact. Still he didn't have a battle with his principles until just recently and even then, it was a solid three weeks after we started destroying a force that HE HIMSELF has described as a threat. Now - suddenly - overnight - because he was trolled by the evil Orangeman - and because he "knows" that this isn't about national security - its about 'Israel bad' - because he said so. If he wants me to listen, he needs to come clean with the evidence that Israel is driving this train. Otherwise its just sensationalized talk that seems to be the typical setup for a run at elected office.

He can't change the past - either he has been telling everyone a lie about the threat - or he is telling a lie now. In short...

Fuck Joe Kent - he quit - he is no longer part of the effort, good or bad - he's got what he wanted - time to move on Joe - next slide....

I remember a lot of people had strong "feelings" about Obama on this board and more than a few about Trump during his first administration and I remember getting a lot of hate for telling them that being in service to your country is voluntary. The Service be that military service or civil, is not a train station and they are not trains. There need not be an announcement of their arrival or their departure. Only that they work while they're here.

Dude just engagement farmed and bunch of people are falling for it.

The closest you'll get to an objective "Joe Kent is involved in leaking" is his inclusion in the larger SignalGate issue. He engaged in there on behalf of Gabbard, and then defended it iduring his Senate confirmation hearing.

So, if you had strong words about the SignalGate and painted everyone in there with a broad brush as leaking war plans (not saying either of you did), then there's your square to circle on that one. He's either pure as the driven snow, or he leaked classified information once before. Choose your own adventure.

For the record, I was living in Washington state, loved Joe Kent and what he was trying to do there (he lost 2 times), and even if it turns out all the allegations (deep rumors about a canary trap he got caught in and his resignation was an "I quit you can't fire me" sort of deal) turn out to be true- I am glad that a politician was just willing to be honest and say "I dont agree with this admin on this issue, I am out."

Watching everyone on the right just jump in lock step for the character assasination/cancel culture surrounding this one gives me the ick.

Fellow Aaron Bro, remember just because someone says they quit doesn't mean they weren't fired. Happens all the time.

ETA: When personnel quit or are fired they are not eligible for unemployment. They are only eligible for unemployment if they were laid off. Where this is different for service members is that once your contract is up is you're eligibly for unemployment...I stupidly did not file for unemployment after leaving active service. Would have made life slightly easier at the time.

 

[Marauder06]

The closest you'll get to an objective "Joe Kent is involved in leaking" is his inclusion in the larger SignalGate issue. He engaged in there on behalf of Gabbard, and then defended it during his Senate confirmation hearing.


For the record, I was living in Washington state, loved Joe Kent and what he was trying to do there (he lost 2 times), and even if it turns out all the allegations (deep rumors about a canary trap he got caught in and his resignation was an "I quit you can't fire me" sort of deal) turn out to be true- I am glad that a politician was just willing to be honest and say "I dont agree with this admin on this issue, I am out."

Bold part--concur, if true; especially the "willing to be honest" part. If it's "honest" and not "disingenuous." I don't have enough information at this time to make an informed determination.

 

[The Quartermaster]

I remember a lot of people had strong "feelings" about Obama on this board

One in particular who had mod powers at the time, was visibly upset with me at my remark about Obama being one of the worst presidents ever at the time. made me leave this site on my own for a long break despite the very fact that I was a site FNG at the time.

Which is why I hold contempt for him with his anti Trump rants as he played the double standard card with me. Either we are allowed free speech to dissent when we feel the need to or we are lock, step, and heel with every president good or bad. So which is it?

 

[Topkick]

One in particular who had mod powers at the time, was visibly upset with me at my remark about Obama being one of the worst presidents ever at the time. made me leave this site on my own for a long break despite the very fact that I was a site FNG at the time.

Which is why I hold contempt for him with his anti Trump rants as he played the double standard card with me. Either we are allowed free speech to dissent when we feel the need to or we are lock, step, and heel with every president good or bad. So which is it?

I never understood the love for Obama. Anytime I asked someone why they were voting for him, I usually got the deer in the headlights look because he ran on no policy other than "Hope and change." I have never cared about anything other than policy. Skin color, nah. Gender, nah. But can we at least require a candidate to have a stance on some issues?

I said all that to say...when Obama won is when I realized that I can't take politics personal and I'm not going to change anyone's mind.

 

[Devildoc]

Part of the problem, a BIG part of the problem, is everyone has become binary: you are for me, or you are against me; you either support President XXXXXX 100%, or you are a douchebag. I have seen this significantly rise since Bush v Gore and the great Florida debacle and SCOTUS intervention.

Kent said publicly that Iran was a threat; now he resigns because he doesn't agree with the administration's position on Iran. I still think something happened or something changed, but if it is no more than what esteemed colleague @amlove21 said (I am glad that a politician was just willing to be honest and say "I dont agree with this admin on this issue, I am out."), I'm fine with that.