Sounds like you're the one jumping to conclusions, I explained what another post linked to because someone asked for it to be explained, the post was saying Hegseth/Waltz should resign, I never said I agreed with that.

My post literally says why isn't anyone else discussing this, not that it isn't a strategy or a mistake.

They wanted their views on Europe known.

That's a stretch, far easier ways to let Europe and the world know.

Trump has come out on national TV and said as much and more towards this point of allies not doing enough to protect themselves vs the USA stepping in all the time.

I'm surprised there's not a bigger post about this, this makes them look really dumb.

I can't imagine why this would've been intentional, the reporter didn't leak the story before it happened either so it's not like they could claim he was trying to ruin something not to mention the reporter did nothing to gain access to this information, he was invited so it feels more like entrapment if they're going to claim the reporter was acting malicious or intentionally trying to gather and leak information.

People are saying Hegseth needs to resign because why are they using signal to discuss this and not a SCIF, and they're saying Waltz needs to resign because he's the one that added an unknown number and person to a group chat discussing it.

Nvm, I just realized she's a democrat, Rep Melanie Stansbury

I've noticed that trend as well and it's a good point to remember this is a public website that enemies read.

Well yeah it would be nice but I haven't seen anything to indicate that it's been done.

Do you have a source on this? I thought he snubbed the ICC.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/jan/20/international-criminal-court-icc-braces-swift-trump-sanctions-over-israeli-arrest-warrants

I'm getting real tired of this. There are people who are shouting from the roof tops that Israel is corrupt and committing genocide, among a whole host of other criminal activities, but for some reason the US government is supporting it for optics?

Fuck out of here with that "Just following orders" bullshit.

Edit: I love how people downvote on here like cowards when someone makes a point or asks a question, why not respond with your criticism so we can have a discussion and the best argument wins instead of just clicking a button like a child.

So legal immigrants who criticize Jews get deported?

how is antisemitism defined

That's the confusing part, it isn't defined. Some state laws define it locally in the actual text of the law but even then it's super vague, other laws refer to Jewish organizations for their definition.

Source?

I don't see that on his profile.

I'm still confused by all the laws for anti-semitism, on the one hand we know Israel is ran by fake Jews and real Jews don't like Israel as it exists, on the other hand it makes people questioning Israel look bad.

I've been wondering if eventually something will come out about Israel that will make the world react to anyone claiming to be Jewish, regardless of their stance, and this is suppose to help prevent that but even that idea seems a little weak.

Kinda odd all the dems said no, I thought they were all controlled on both sides, didn't democrats, and republicans, practically get on their knees and worship Netanyahu when he came to do a speech at the capital?

Trump mentioned in his Agenda 47 video that he would declare cartels as terrorist organizations and use US military assets against them. Not sure on the other sources.

Obama has his on his archived POTUS account which hasn't posted since 2017 but Obama's personal account is a blue check.

Yes but there are good generals to pick from so clearly military rank is not the sole qualification Trump looked at when choosing this appointment.

Alright fair, I still don't understand the purpose or benefit of such a vague definition because that could be applied to any group of people and labeled as harassment so why make a special law just for antisemitism.

They took out ISIS: https://x.com/drawandstrike/status/1850216151122681863

The bill defines antisemitism

The bill provides the most vague and useless definition ever: https://mylrc.sdlegislature.gov/api/Documents/261317.pdf

the term "antisemitism" means a certain perception of Jews that may be expressed as hatred toward Jews, including rhetorical and physical acts of antisemitism directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals or their property, or toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

Some would say the bible itself is now antisemitism.

let's not forget the Trump has a one-to-one scale life-size model of the ark of the covenant at Mar-A-Lago

Jews are not Israel.

The position originally was supposed to go to a civilian

That's an interesting idea but if that were true then why was the first Secretary of Defense James Forrestal who was a Lieutenant in the Navy?

Edit: So I did some more research on this and it seems like most Secretary of Defense were not generals. I went off Wikipedia so bare that in mind, break down it below.

MIL Rank

Lieutenant x3

General x3

Lieutenant Colonel x2

First Lieutenant x3

Captain x4

Sergeant x1

Colonel x1

Unknown x1 (Bill Clements)

CIV

Patrick M. Shanahan (Business, Politician)

James R. Schlesinger (Economist)

Harold Brown (Physicist)

Dick Cheney (Politician)

William Cohen (Business, Politician)

Ashton Carter (Physicist, Politician)

David Norquist (Politician)

Can you clarify?

He trusted some generals when he took out ISIS, I remember that story he told when they said he went over there and they told him it'd only take a few weeks to deal with ISIS vs the years long time frame someone told him in Washington.

Edit: Source of Trump talking about the generals

Though he does describe them as "central casting" but considering they delivered I think this is him saying they looked good not that they're fake generals.

God wins in the end, but that God is not YHWH.

What is that suppose to mean?