- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jeffery Goldberg claims he was accidentally added to war games chat from Trump admin
Posted on 3/24/25 at 2:52 pm to RaoulDuke504
Posted on 3/24/25 at 2:52 pm to RaoulDuke504
circus of incompetent clowns
1
Posted on 3/24/25 at 2:55 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Can't imagine Trump is happy with some things that Vance says there.
Why?
Also, amusing the left is simultaneously trying to play up "Trump only appoints yes men!" while also going "Vance disagreeing with Trump OMG!"
Someone asked about Hegseth, and I had the same question considering it was Waltz who apparently formed the group and brought in JG. But I guess Hegseth deserves scorn for including operational details/intel rather than just the more abstract policy considerations from other players.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 2:56 pm to beaux duke
quote:
circus of incompetent clowns
I will note that nobody talking about how scared they are to live under the Trump regime was/is at all concerned about the fact that we have no idea who ran country during the last two years of the Biden administration.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 3:01 pm to SoonerK
quote:
I guarantee you that almost every important country's security agency has full access to Signal.
Since Jack Dorsey was Signal's daddy, and we know how he allowed the Hussein/Biden regimes to run roughshod over First Amendment rights during the Twitter 1.0 era, I am inclined to agree with you.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 3:03 pm to RaoulDuke504
How could he be prosecuted if Hegseth, et al sent the info to his Signal account?
Posted on 3/24/25 at 3:07 pm to RaoulDuke504
I couldn't care less what Jeffrey Goldberg has to say.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 3:08 pm to HeadCall
quote:
I’m guessing about a 0% chance that’s real
Considering multiple people in that signal thread confirmed it, you would be dead wrong.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 3:09 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:He missed a golden opportunity to order some airstrikes.
I just read it
I give Goldberg props for removing himself from chat once he realized it was legit
Many other journalists would have stayed in
Posted on 3/24/25 at 3:21 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Can't imagine Trump is happy with some things that Vance says there.
What does he say here that you wouldn’t want to hear from someone on your team? Is it just that he doesn’t categorically agree?
Hell, my biggest concern is that my people DON’T say what they really think. Do it respectfully and in good faith, and extend that same courtesy to ALL team members.
The last thing I want is a staff of rubber stampers.
This post was edited on 3/24/25 at 3:22 pm
Posted on 3/24/25 at 3:22 pm to mmcgrath
shite happens.
Like Trump said, attacks went great anyway.
Like Trump said, attacks went great anyway.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 3:22 pm to Ag Zwin
I think Trump appreciates Vance disagreeing to his face.
I don't think he appreciates someone disagreeing with him on something substantial behind his back, and especially now that this leaked.
I don't think he appreciates someone disagreeing with him on something substantial behind his back, and especially now that this leaked.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 3:24 pm to Powerman
quote:
like how MAGA is assuming this is fake
Meaning we assume it wasn’t by accident.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 3:25 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
I think Trump appreciates Vance disagreeing to his face.
I don't think he appreciates someone disagreeing with him on something substantial behind his back, and especially now that this leaked.
It was a discussion involving high level cabinet members, is everyone supposed to hold back? Or are they supposed to put forth their real feelings about the situation? I don't think that Vance was harsh, he was just hesitant.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 3:25 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
I don't think he appreciates someone disagreeing with him on something substantial behind his back, and especially now that this leaked.
Where does he do that?
He says he’s not sure something has been thought through or realized. That’s a really low bar for “disagreeing”.
I see it working exactly as it should. He expressed a concern. The team heard him out and said they see it differently. He acquiesced.
It’s not like he sat there digging a hole of calling Trump an idiot.
When I was in grad school (MBA), several classes had a participation element to the grade where your score was a function of your questions and critiques of case study presentations. They could get brutal, but everyone knew it wasn’t personal.
If you can’t take honest and good faith questioning of big issues, I don’t want you making the final call.
This post was edited on 3/24/25 at 5:05 pm
Posted on 3/24/25 at 3:26 pm to VOR
quote:what about insubordination?
Gross negligence or incompetence can be as damaging as “intent”.
This post was edited on 3/24/25 at 3:28 pm
Posted on 3/24/25 at 3:26 pm to SoonerK
quote:
the National Security Advisor invited the journalist into the chat.
He needs to be fired. You can't make mistakes like that and just walk it off.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 3:28 pm to SoonerK
quote:
has already been confirmed by the NSC, WH and Vance's spokesman
No, it absolutely has not
Posted on 3/24/25 at 3:29 pm to CR4090
quote:
He needs to be fired. You can't make mistakes like that and just walk it off.
agreed. this is a fireable offense for whoever did it, even if it was the SecDef...which sucks because i love him. but there must be accountability
Posted on 3/24/25 at 3:31 pm to memphisplaya
quote:
No, it absolutely has not
From the article:
quote:
Brian Hughes, the spokesman for the National Security Council, responded two hours later, confirming the veracity of the Signal group. “This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain,” Hughes wrote.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 3:33 pm to Sam Quint
The use of Signal for high-level/classified comms is major problem. I’m guessing this isn’t the only time they put classified information in Signal.
Page 5 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News