JWeinCom is the one that posted the link to the snopes article so he deserves the thanks for that.  With what you quoted from it makes sense but I would point out our conference tables look the same way with spare Ethernet cables coming out of hubs spaced throughout the table so it's inclusion seems a little ignorant.

You will get no argument from me that we screwed the very people that were a large part of getting the intelligence for the raid. Baghdadi was getting ready to move which also played a part in the timing of the raid not just the pull out of the troops.  

The whimpering thing could be an embellishment although both (slightly slanted) articles also elude to a possibility of how he could have come by the information ... that said I'd go with embellishment, thanks for the links.

This has more information than most of the articles I'd read.  I didn't get through all of it but you might find it interesting  :https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/27/politics/bagdhadi-inside-the-raid-timeline/index.html

Lastly letting Russia know we were going to be moving through their airspace does not seem like a horrible idea.

Hadn't seen that some were denying the kill.  I was under the impression they took DNA samples from the walls of the tunnel post cablooey.  Similar to the tests to confirm Bin Laden was himself in that particular raid.

I can understand your objection to not informing who should have been informed.  If Trump was legitimately worried about a leak botching the mission I wonder if it would have been possible to sequester them in a fashion until the raid was over.  That said such an action could set a bad precedent.

It's possible this might have been mentioned and discussed already because I haven't been to this thread in some time now and lack the energy to scroll back many pages to find out, but in case it hasn't been, thought I'd highlight the fact that President Trump's recent appearance at the World Series (where he broke with a century-old tradition by refusing to throw out the first pitch) was met with loud booing, followed by chants of "LOCK..HIM..UP! LOCK..HIM..UP!" from the 41,000 attendees. At one point, some of the attendees unfurled a banner reading "IMPEACH TRUMP!" Even Fox News struggled to spin the scene in his favor, with one of their commentators arguing that the baseball fans in the audience should be "held accountable" for disrespecting the president, whatever that means.

I think that's probably the first time Trump has ever stepped outside his bubble of support. Seriously, like every public appearance he makes is either just with the press or in a safe space like a campaign rally where only supporters are allowed in. For perhaps the first time in his political career, he finally stepped outside that bubble to occupy the same space as a whole bunch of real, normal people, not screened for political allegiance, to learn, probably for the first time, that he's not actually popular and well-loved after all. You can see the shock and horror take over his face as he eventually discovers that he's the one being booed in the footage. I think getting a brief taste of what most people think of him was probably the healthiest thing he's done his entire tenure so far.

But lets just focus on the long held American obsession of giving comedians such a big place in politics.

What I mean is that Trump really seems to generally live in a world where he appears to only supporters on the one hand (like his staff, who he can fire if they disagree with him, or his rallies where only supporters are allowed in) or else at press events. My point being that this dynamic doubtless leaves him with the impression that it's only the press that dislikes him and real, ordinary people love him. Now he has discovered otherwise.

As to people who attend the World Series, it's worth pointing out that said tickets are priced high for a reason: because they're highly sought after. Baseball has been traditionally known as "the American past time". It seems weird to suggest that baseball fans aren't normal Americans.

To be fair, Bill Maher is not a comedian with a big place in politics. He's a comedian who makes politics a big part of his comedy, and this isn't an American thing, it's a Western culture thing that dates all the way back to ancient Greece.

But even if he were a politician, why not? The US has done much worse considering their current President is literally a reality TV/Pro wrestling personality.

Good, but current date i would tell you that it seems like  American comedians put much more focus on politicians compared to other countries.

I do not know if Bil Maher does not have a big place in politics because he talks about it so often.

Second bolded: Because it is not constructive in my opinion and in first place it is mostly low tier comedy,like Trevor noahs atempts it is almost lazy.

It is healthy for him to get out and get a taste of what all the people think from time to time, but based on his facial expressions, while he is showing bruise to his ego, there is clearly also disappointment in there, and not about himself. While Trump wants them to like him, you can also see he thinks they are mislead. 

There's many ways you could look at this, like the naysayers who point out that Trump does many things that make America look bad to the rest of the world, yet plenty of people worldwide are going to see this, and so how is that helping the worldview of America? Also, you could say he kinda asked for it since he started the whole lock her up thing, yet at the same time, it's the naysayers who've been complaining he shouldn't be doing that because it's wrong, and now here they are doing exactly that. If you're Trump, are you really going to believe what they're saying here holds water, if it goes against what they've said initially about lock her up and making America look bad worldwide?

Should Trump have started it in the first place? Was it wrong? If it's wrong, should you follow suit? Would that make you as bad as him? Then who should listen and give merit to either side?

No President has ever had all of the people on their side during their time in office, and so negativity is going to get thrown their way at some point at times, especially in certain places. What matters most is the majority. A small amount of loud people in a small space, does not negate the many quieter people countrywide. It also doesn't mean a leader should turn a blind eye to that small group, but he has to focus more so on the majority, otherwise, what you get is Trump. There is a reason they say that the "silent majority" showed up for the 2016 election. 

Lastly, if Trump actually was able to try and talk and reason with these chanters at the game, do you think it would likely lead anywhere constructive? If not, then why put yourself in situations like that? You go where people will be reasonable, where you can actually get things accomplished, which the media rarely covers because it doesn't get ratings. They show him either getting pummeled by his naysayers, or they sometimes show him being praised by his most devout followers. The majority is somewhere in between those extreme's, and so why aren't they being covered?

The "silent majority", also happens to be seen as the 'boring majority', unfortunately.

Some weird takes here:

1) That's a lot read from an expression. I don't know that you can read "a disappointment regarding the fact that other individuals are misled about you" from a fading smile, but hey, more power to ya if you think you can.

2) Now, this is the part that made me want to respond. Please correct me if I'm wrong and explain what you mean, but when I read this comment, it sounds to me like you are saying that people criticizing someone for doing something bad, is in itself bad because it brings attention to that bad thing. I find that ridiculous. It is not the fault of those criticizing the President's actions for doing harm to America's standing in the world, it is the fault of the person actually doing the bad things.

3) The main reason that "Lock her up" has been criticized, is because it reeks of a Soviet style imprisonment of an individual's political opponents. It is the responsibility of those in politics to oversee the peaceful transition of power and ensure that power is not being abused. The President (or prospective president) making these comments is wrong, because it implies abuse of power. An individual outside of politics does not hold the same responsibility. I can say "I believe that the President should be imprisoned", but I would feel a lot less comfortable about individuals within the Democratic Primary making that same statement. I do believe that the President has broken the law, but I also believe that the executive branch should not be used as a tool against political opponents. I also think you have to acknowledge that much of these chants is likely meant more ironically as a response to Trump, but I don't think we need to get into that.

4) Yes, it was wrong for Trump to start the "Lock her up" chants. Next question.

5) Very much worth noting that Trump has never had majority support. He did not win the popular vote and his disapproval rate has been higher than his approval rate basically since taking office. While no President has ever garnered support from literally everybody, many have obtained significantly higher levels of support than this president. I believe Trump will be the first President to never have an approval rate over 50% since polling was popularized if we maintain this course.

6) Again, give that "silent majority" a few extra quotes. Something like """""""Silent "Majority" """"""" would be more fitting.

7) No. Trump cannot talk himself out of his actions. He needs to act.