The Scaravan

exGOPer

exGOPer

"“As far as the caravan––which is very dangerous, you see what’s been happening––as far as the caravan is concerned, our military is out. We have about 5,000––we’ll go up to anywhere between 10 and 15,000 military personnel, on top of border patrol, ICE, and everybody else at the border. Nobody’s coming in. We’re not allowing people to come in.”"

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-t...-to-15000-troops-could-be-sent-to-the-border/

Alpha male and a real man with twitter Trump needs 15,000 troops to stop some poor, hungry families that have just traveled 2,000 miles. You need 20000 troops to stop 3000 hapless unarmed poor people? Where was this attitude when Puerto Rico needed help? Not 'our' people?

Funny thing is that it would take 2 more months before the caravan would get to the border so why the troops now? Oh wait it is a week before the election, meaning it is a political stunt. There's literally no reason to send troops to the border except as vote bait for the inbred white nationalist trash.
 
Veterans slam Trump for border 'stunt'

Washington With his decision to deploy more than 5,000 troops to the US-Mexico border, President Donald Trump has ordered more military personnel to the US southwest than he has serving in some of the world's most contentious combat zones.

Senior military officers have defended the deployment on national security grounds, but the mission -- dubbed Operation Faithful Patriot -- raises a slew of questions, with former officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations and some veterans condemning it as a political stunt by a President eager to fire up his political base just days away from the midterm elections.

"A military strained by 17 years of war and sequestration doesn't need this," tweeted David Lapan, a former Homeland Security spokesman for the Trump administration and a former Marine. "Service members who have repeatedly spent long periods of time away from home don't need this. And the US doesn't need its military to 'defend' against a group of unarmed migrants, inc. many women & kids."

Former officials and veterans point to the unknown cost to taxpayers, given that much smaller deployments of National Guard to the border have cost hundreds of millions of dollars. They also question the cost the military will bear, as the operation pulls troops away from training, other missions and their families. And then, they say, there's the murky legality of the mission, its scope and its purpose.

Despite Trump's unsubstantiated claim that the group of Central Americans includes "gang members and some very bad people," most of the migrants have reportedly indicated that they plan to follow legal procedures and apply for asylum once they arrive at the border.

"This is not a national security issue. ... We're seeing women, children and the elderly within this caravan fighting for their lives. We don't need more military there," according to Bishop Garrison, the interim executive director of the Truman National Security Project, a left-leaning organization focused on national security and veterans issues.

"We don't need to make a sensitive issue and situation all the more dramatic," said Garrison, a former Homeland Security and Pentagon official.
 
exGOPer said:
That's true too, they are grifting donations trying to scare people with this shit. A fool and his money.
More...

"Well, I try. I do try... and I always want to tell the truth. When I can, I tell the truth. And sometimes it turns out to be where something happens that’s different or there’s a change, but I always like to be truthful," Trump said.

Today.

Wish I was six and facing down menopausal Sister DeSales again armed with that.

Not really, I'd be dead.
 
Last edited:
Slartibartfast said:
"Well, I try. I do try... and I always want to tell the truth. When I can, I tell the truth. And sometimes it turns out to be where something happens that’s different or there’s a change, but I always like to be truthful," Trump said.

Today. About the border.

Wish I was six and facing down menopausal Sister DeSales again armed with that.

Not really, I'd be dead.
More...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1057812877526978560

He even lies about lying.
 
exGOPer said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1057812877526978560

He even lies about lying.
More...

I found this while pondering Pointy one day.

http://time.com/4540707/lying-lies-brain/

Once a liar, always a liar, the old saying goes. Turns out there’s some scientific truth to that: researchers have tracked down how the brain makes lying easier as the untruths build up, providing some biological evidence for why small lies often balloon into ever larger ones.

In a study published in Nature Neuroscience, Tali Sharot from the department of experimental psychology at University College London and her colleagues devised a clever study to test people’s dishonest tendencies while scanning their brains in an fMRI machine. The 80 people in the study were shown pennies in a glass jar and given different incentives to guide whether they lied or told the truth to a fellow partner about how much money was contained in the jar. In some conditions, both the participant and the partner benefited if the participant lied; in others, just the participant benefited from his fib, or just the partner benefited (with no cost to either). In another set of scenarios, either the participant or partner benefited, but at the expense of the other if the participant lied. In each case, Sharot documented the changes in the people’s brains as they made their decisions.

They found that when people were dishonest, activity in a part of the brain called the amygdala—the hub of emotional processing and arousal—changed. With each scenario, the more dishonestly the participant advised his partner, the less activated the amygdala was on the fMRI. That may be because lying triggers emotional arousal and activates the amygdala, but with each additional lie, the arousal and conflict of telling an untruth diminishes, making it easier to lie.

Sharot also found that the amygdala became less active mostly when people lied to benefit themselves. In other words, self-interest seems to fuel dishonesty.

“Part of the emotional arousal we see when people lie is because of the conflict between how people see themselves and their actions,” Sharot said during a briefing discussing the results. “So I lie for self-benefit, but at the same time it doesn’t fit the way I want to view myself, which is as an honest person. It’s possible that we learn from the arousal signal…with less emotional arousal, perhaps I’m less likely to see the act as incongruent with my own self perception.”

The researchers were even able to map out how each lie led to less amygdala activation and found that the decrease could predict how much the person’s dishonesty would escalate in the next trial. Biology seems to back up the warnings parents give to their kids: that one lie just leads to another.
 
tdkit3ftxpv11.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top