Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 25, 2016, 04:02:54 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
97392 Posts in 2328 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: James
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  2016 Presidential
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] Print
Author Topic: 2016 Presidential  (Read 95234 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37753


« Reply #1450 on: September 18, 2016, 12:42:54 AM »

If Hilliary gets the Dem States and the Dem Leaning States she has 272 electoral right now, even if Trump gets all the Undecided plus all the Rep and Rep Leaning States.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 477


« Reply #1451 on: September 18, 2016, 01:04:37 AM »

If Hilliary gets the Dem States and the Dem Leaning States she has 272 electoral right now, even if Trump gets all the Undecided plus all the Rep and Rep Leaning States.


Agreed. I don't think she will though. We've had Mexican delegates come here from Chicago. The president of the Migrants' Clubs of Zacatecas stated that his numbers were,  they have 800,000 illegals registered with the migrants club associated to Zacatecas (from all states, just referring to the ones from Zacatecas), and that of those 800K, that 1.6 million family members (anchor babies, etc.), also depended on them for money (that they were asking from the government here in Zac).

What was interesting, and I quote, "of all the people we have, 20% still live in poverty (hence asking for money), and that 80% have now attained middle class status in the United States."

The Latinos there in the States, are not as friendly to other latinos as one might think, and very well may be the nail in Hillary's coffin because they don't want to risk the jobs they have gained, to other Mexicans. There is very much a rift. I think it will cost the Dems blue states.

Additionally, of the swing states reported right now: http://www.270towin.com/maps/2016-election-toss-up-states

They have AZ listed as a swing state. I don't think it will be. If Trump picks up AZ, CO (almost always blue and has had a huge swing in the polls recently), NV - those aren't that hard to win for Trump. On the Eastern seaboard, obviously Florida is key - lots of upset White people, but also a lot of Cubans and Blacks. I do feel confident that Trump will win PA and VA. NC is a guess, but to say, that if Trump picks up AZ, NV, and CO, with the addition of PA, VA, NC, and FL, he'll have 282 as the map sits right now. Clinton can have OH, MI, WI and IA, and still will only get 250. Florida and NC are what Trump needs to win.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2016, 01:18:43 AM by DDF » Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13935


« Reply #1452 on: September 18, 2016, 02:07:50 AM »

National polls don't matter because it's not a national vote. Also, there will be epic levels of fraud and alterations.

Delving deeper, we know that many Sander's voters won't actually jump ship. I think the actual number is closer to 30% (one in three voters for Sanders) Which means, 10 million voters will either vote for Trump, Stein, or Johnson. If we assign half to Stein, and split the rest between Trump and Johnson, here what it looks like in closing:

Trump - 63,500,000
Clinton - 55,640,000
Stein - 5,469,000 (counting her .5 million from 2012)
Johnson - 3,775,000 (counting the 1.27 mil he had from 2012)

I stated that Trump would get 52% of the vote. With 63.5 million and a voter turnout of 128 million, he'd have to be at 66.56 million (well within what he could reach with Sanders bailouts).

I stated that Hillary would be at 44% of the vote or 56.32 million voters of 128 million. Based on Barracks numbers of 66,000,000 in 2012, and a 1/3 to 1/2 of Sander's voters jumping ship, the empress could easily find herself 15 million votes short, putting her as low as 51,000,000, well within the target I have proposed.

Needless to say, these aren't electoral college votes, nor are they swing state votes.

1. Most Latinos already reside in Blue states, BUT.... they aren't interested in seeing other Mexicans other than their immediate family come and take their jobs.
2. States that have been blue could go red because of this, with purple states having an even higher turnover.
3. Trump won't get the Black vote, but at 12%-15% (19 million votes) of the population, and most based in Blue states, he doesn't need it.

Basically what I've come up with.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6021


« Reply #1453 on: September 18, 2016, 10:57:22 AM »

is this possible??? or incorrect? 

 shocked shocked shocked grin grin grin

http://nypost.com/2016/09/18/black-voters-are-turning-from-clinton-to-trump-in-new-poll/
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 477


« Reply #1454 on: September 18, 2016, 02:43:52 PM »

Of course you're correct. Soros and electronic voting. # million illegals voting in California is child's play compared to changing the number electronically. No physical count, nada.

National polls don't matter because it's not a national vote. Also, there will be epic levels of fraud and alterations.

Delving deeper, we know that many Sander's voters won't actually jump ship. I think the actual number is closer to 30% (one in three voters for Sanders) Which means, 10 million voters will either vote for Trump, Stein, or Johnson. If we assign half to Stein, and split the rest between Trump and Johnson, here what it looks like in closing:

Trump - 63,500,000
Clinton - 55,640,000
Stein - 5,469,000 (counting her .5 million from 2012)
Johnson - 3,775,000 (counting the 1.27 mil he had from 2012)

I stated that Trump would get 52% of the vote. With 63.5 million and a voter turnout of 128 million, he'd have to be at 66.56 million (well within what he could reach with Sanders bailouts).

I stated that Hillary would be at 44% of the vote or 56.32 million voters of 128 million. Based on Barracks numbers of 66,000,000 in 2012, and a 1/3 to 1/2 of Sander's voters jumping ship, the empress could easily find herself 15 million votes short, putting her as low as 51,000,000, well within the target I have proposed.

Needless to say, these aren't electoral college votes, nor are they swing state votes.

1. Most Latinos already reside in Blue states, BUT.... they aren't interested in seeing other Mexicans other than their immediate family come and take their jobs.
2. States that have been blue could go red because of this, with purple states having an even higher turnover.
3. Trump won't get the Black vote, but at 12%-15% (19 million votes) of the population, and most based in Blue states, he doesn't need it.

Basically what I've come up with.
Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8238


« Reply #1455 on: September 18, 2016, 04:17:38 PM »

Barack Obama's publicist called Obama a Kenyan until a week after he announced for President.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/booklet.asp
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2146622/Barack-Obama-Kenyan-born-2007-according-literary-agency--months-announcing-bid-U-S-presidency.html

Michelle Obama called Barack a Kenyan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E96lAHygeIU&app=desktop   (Approx 2:00 mark)

Hillary Clinton Campaign Manager Admits 2008 Birther Link
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/16/hillary-clinton-campaign-manager-admits-birtherism-started/

https://www.americarisingpac.org/video-new-ad-reminds-south-carolina-voters-about-clintons-history-of-shameful-rhetoric/
----------------------------------

What I never understood about the birther question:  If a woman from Kansas gives birth somewhere else, traveling abroad, did the kid just lose his US citizenship?  Did she lose hers?  Are they now citizens, mother and child, of different countries?  I don't think so. 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8238


« Reply #1456 on: September 18, 2016, 04:25:23 PM »


Yes it's possible!

"Trump saw a 16.5 percentage-point increase in backing from African-American voters in a Los Angeles Times/University of Southern California tracking poll, up from 3.1 percent on Sept. 10 to 19.6 percent through Friday. Meanwhile, the same poll showed Clinton’s support among that group plummeting from 90.4 percent on Sept. 10 to 71.4 percent."

That's a 35 point swing.  Undecideds may break for Clinton but the magic is gone in terms of unanimity, enthusiasm and turnout.  There is no offsetting gain for Clinton with whites or anyone else.  Solid liberals are lukewarm on Clinton.

Bill Clinton's magic to help her is gone too, lost his voice, 'd*cking b*mbos' and the fact that the policies he used to grow the economy were Gingrich's, opposite of what HRC supports now.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2016, 04:28:15 PM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6021


« Reply #1457 on: September 19, 2016, 06:59:27 AM »

May come down to debates.  Clinton and the moderators will certainly do their best to bait Trump and bring out the worst.  No one can be confident we will not see him give them their wish:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440149/donald-trump-electoral-math-no-path-270-despite-momentum

If only KaliFORicator where still in play. 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37753


« Reply #1458 on: September 19, 2016, 07:31:53 AM »

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/debate-rules-set-hillary-donors/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8238


« Reply #1459 on: September 19, 2016, 09:29:55 AM »

If Hilliary gets the Dem States and the Dem Leaning States she has 272 electoral right now, even if Trump gets all the Undecided plus all the Rep and Rep Leaning States.

Trump will not win this in any kind of a tie or close vote.   He needs to build on the momentum he earned recently and defeat her.  Voting for Trump can't come with shame or embarrassment.  He needs to look and act ready to govern from now until the end of his Presidency.  Anything short of that and he loses.  There will be one or two gaffes.  They need to be corrected quickly.  And there will be mud slung.  He needs to play the part of a great President ready to lead, all day, everyday.  If he wins nationwide by 3-4 points or more, much more, there won't be an electoral vote question.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 477


« Reply #1460 on: September 19, 2016, 09:59:18 AM »

If Hilliary gets the Dem States and the Dem Leaning States she has 272 electoral right now, even if Trump gets all the Undecided plus all the Rep and Rep Leaning States.

Trump will not win this in any kind of a tie or close vote.   He needs to build on the momentum he earned recently and defeat her.  Voting for Trump can't come with shame or embarrassment.  He needs to look and act ready to govern from now until the end of his Presidency.  Anything short of that and he loses.  There will be one or two gaffes.  They need to be corrected quickly.  And there will be mud slung.  He needs to play the part of a great President ready to lead, all day, everyday.  If he wins nationwide by 3-4 points or more, much more, there won't be an electoral vote question.

100% agreed. It needs to be obvious, so much so, that it would cause a national calamity if he isn't elected. Even then, I'm not sure that someone (who that would be, is a good question), wouldn't alter the vote count. In fact, being that we're asking that, who exactly is in charge of insuring votes aren't rigged, are by citizens, and have been counted correctly. What is their method of doing so and the proof required?

« Last Edit: September 19, 2016, 02:23:49 PM by DDF » Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 477


« Reply #1461 on: September 19, 2016, 02:31:15 PM »

In regard to the post I just made, I came across this link: http://www.wanttoknow.info/votingproblems , which makes some extraordinary claims, such as:

1. 80% of all U.S. votes (not just electronic) are counted by these two: Diebold and ES&S.
2. The president of Diebold and a vice president of ES&S are brothers.


What is amazing to me, is that many of the links contained in the page, now turn up 404 error messages that the pages no longer exist.

If these claims are true, it is amazing to me, that electronic votes, that have no physical proof, that are in the hands of two brothers, who hand out management positions to convicted felons, are allowed anywhere near counting the voices of any American. I'll see what else I can find, but I have to say, some of the deleted links come from widely read newspapers or even the Diebold site itself.
Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37753


« Reply #1462 on: September 19, 2016, 04:17:01 PM »

This is excellent work DDF.  Please post in on the SEIU/Electoral fraud thread as well as here.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 477


« Reply #1463 on: September 19, 2016, 04:40:57 PM »

This is excellent work DDF.  Please post in on the SEIU/Electoral fraud thread as well as here.


Tailwags Guru. In fact, before I post anything else, I need to read the entire SEIU thread to make sure that I'm not replicating anything. I've already turned up some things, but want to make sure that I'm not just regurgitating something that someone else here has posted.

The search function here on the forum only returns three instances of Diebold, zero instances of Premier Election Solutions, and likewise, zero for ESS or (Election Systems and Software). In liue of reading the entire thread, I am going to go with the search results that it isn't widely discussed, though Bigdog has mentioned it here at least once. I will see if I can find his article as well.

The thread started primarily with ACORN fraud as you all know.

Diebold, now know as Premier Election Solutions, is notoriously tight lipped about their operations.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2016, 10:54:19 PM by DDF » Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37753


« Reply #1464 on: September 19, 2016, 11:21:20 PM »

Excellent DDF.

==============


By Robert M. Gates
Sept. 16, 2016 6:23 p.m. ET
1285 COMMENTS

You wouldn’t know it from the presidential campaigns, but the first serious crisis to face our new president most likely will be international. The list of possibilities is long—longer than it was eight years ago.

Here is the world the new president will inherit at noon on January 20—a range of challenges for which neither candidate has offered new strategies or paths forward.

Every aspect of our relationship with China is becoming more challenging. In addition to Chinese cyberspying and theft of intellectual property, many American businesses in China are encountering an increasingly hostile environment. China’s nationalist determination unilaterally to assert sovereignty over disputed waters and islands in the East and South China Seas is steadily increasing the risk of military confrontation.

Most worrying, given their historic bad blood, escalation of a confrontation between China and Japan could be very dangerous. As a treaty partner of Japan, we would be obligated to help Tokyo. China intends to challenge the U.S. for regional dominance in East Asia over the long term, but the new president could quickly face a Chinese military challenge over disputed islands and freedom of navigation.

Dealing effectively with China requires a president with strategic acumen and vision, nuance, deft diplomatic and political skill, and sound instincts on when to challenge, when to stay silent and when to compromise or partner.

On this most complex challenge, neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump has said or done much to give anyone confidence. All we really know is Mr. Trump’s intention to launch a trade war with a country holding over $1 trillion in U.S. debt and the largest market for many U.S. companies; and Mrs. Clinton’s opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which she helped to craft and the failure of which would hand China an easy political and economic win.

Then there is Vladimir Putin’s Russia, now routinely challenging the U.S. and its allies. How to count the ways. There was the armed seizure of Ukraine’s Crimea; Moscow’s military support of the separatist movement in eastern Ukraine; overt and covert intimidation of the Baltic states; the dispatch of fighter and bomber aircraft to avert the defeat of Syria’s Assad; sales of sophisticated weaponry to Iran.

There is Russia’s luring the U.S. secretary of state into believing that a cease-fire in Syria is just around the corner—if only the U.S. would do more, or less, depending on the issue; the cyberattacks on the U.S., including possible attempts to influence the U.S. presidential election; and covert efforts to aggravate division and weakness with the European Union and inside European countries. And there is the dangerously close buzzing of U.S. Navy ships in the Baltic Sea and close encounters with U.S. military aircraft in international airspace.

The only thing longer than the list of hostile Russian actions abroad is the list of repressive actions inside Russia to stifle dissent and strengthen Mr. Putin’s security services-run state. Mr. Putin will continue to behave aggressively until confronted and stopped.

No one in the West wants a return to the Cold War, so the challenge is to confront and stop Mr. Putin’s aggressions while pursuing cooperation on international challenges that can only be addressed successfully if Russia is at the table—from terrorism to climate change, from the Syrian conflict to nuclear nonproliferation and arms control. Again, neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Trump has expressed any views on how they would deal with Mr. Putin (although Mr. Trump’s expressions of admiration for the man and his authoritarian regime are naive and irresponsible).

North Korea and Iran are sworn enemies of the U.S. North Korean potentate Kim Jong Un is building more nuclear weapons for his arsenal even as he develops ballistic missiles that now, or very soon, can reach all of our allies (and U.S. military forces) in Asia. During the first term of the next president these missiles will be able to reach the U.S. mainland.

On his good days, Kim Jong Un appears to outsiders as a cartoonish megalomaniac; on his bad days, he seems to yearn for a Gotterdammerung finale in which a perishing North Korea takes a lot of Asians and Americans with it. Or is he simply continuing to pursue a strategy designed to preserve his rule and North Korea’s independence through nuclear blackmail? The new U.S. president could face an early North Korean provocation against the South, the Japanese or us, and for sure will be confronted by a long-term strategic nuclear threat to our allies and to America.

Regarding Iran, whatever value Mr. Obama’s nuclear agreement has brought, the deal has led to no decrease in Iran’s aggressive meddling in the Middle East nor any lessening of its hostility to the U.S. Iranian naval challenges to U.S. warship operations in the Persian Gulf have nearly doubled over the last year. Iran will do all it can to embarrass the U.S.—such as allowing Russian planes to use Iranian airfields to attack the Syrian opposition and testing ballistic missiles—even as it strives to eject us from the entire region. Our new president had best be prepared for an early test of U.S. resolve in the Persian Gulf and Iran’s continuing regional subversion.

While Mrs. Clinton gave a speech on Iran over a year ago, she has since offered no inkling of her views and has said little about North Korea. Mr. Trump has said nary a word on the challenge posed by either country.

Both candidates have spelled out how they would deal with ISIS, and terrorism more broadly, but their approach in essence sounds like what President Obama is doing now—with more ideological fervor and some additional starch. Neither has addressed what the broader U.S. strategy should be toward a Middle East in flames, from Syria to Iraq to Libya, and where Gulf Arab states worry about their own stability amid growing doubts they can rely on the U.S.; both Egypt and Turkey are ruled by increasingly authoritarian strongmen; and an Israeli-Palestinian conflict further from resolution than ever.

Mr. Trump has suggested we should walk away from the region and hope for the best. This is a dangerous approach oblivious to the reality that what happens in the Middle East doesn’t stay in the Middle East. Mrs. Clinton has ruled out putting U.S. ground troops in Iraq and Syria “ever again.” That is a politically driven categorical declaration of a sort no president (or candidate) should make, and it raises the question whether she would pull out the 5,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq. She has expressed no new ideas to deal with the boiling caldron that is today’s Middle East.

Each of these challenges may require the use of the American military, the most powerful the world has ever seen. The president commands some two million men and women in uniform, and every previous president would attest that the decision to put those lives at risk is the weightiest burden of office. Yet neither candidate has seriously addressed how he or she thinks about the military, the use of military force, the criteria they would apply before sending that force into battle, or broader questions of peace and war. Based on what each candidate has said and done, who can we trust with the lives of young Americans in uniform?

Both candidates have a credibility problem in foreign affairs. Mrs. Clinton was the senior-most advocate for using the U.S. military to bring ill-fated regime change in Libya and, further, failed to anticipate the chaos that would follow—the same failure she and other Democrats hung around the neck of the Bush 43 administration in post-Saddam Iraq. She was for trade agreements before she turned against them in this election campaign, just as she voted for the Iraq war in 2003 and then, several years later—in her first campaign for president—opposed the troop surge there. She has much-discussed credibility issues apart from national security, but these also influence foreign perceptions of reliability and trust.

When it comes to credibility problems, though, Donald Trump is in a league of his own. He has expressed support for building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico; for torturing suspected terrorists and killing their families; for Mr. Putin’s dictatorial leadership and for Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent successes against terrorism. He also has said he is for using defense spending by NATO allies as the litmus test on whether the U.S. will keep its treaty commitments to them; for withdrawing U.S. troops from Europe, South Korea and Japan and for the latter two developing nuclear weapons—a highly destabilizing prospect.

Mr. Trump has been cavalier about the use of nuclear weapons. He has a record of insults to servicemen, their families and the military, which he called a “disaster.” He has declared our senior military leaders “reduced to rubble” and “embarrassing our country” and has suggested that, if elected, he will purge them—an unprecedented and unconscionable threat. As of late, he appears to be rethinking some of these positions but he has yet to learn that when a president shoots off his mouth, there are no do-overs.

Mr. Trump is also willfully ignorant about the rest of the world, about our military and its capabilities, and about government itself. He disdains expertise and experience while touting his own—such as his claim that he knows more about ISIS than America’s generals. He has no clue about the difference between negotiating a business deal and negotiating with sovereign nations.

All of the presidents I served were strong personalities with strongly held views about the world. But each surrounded himself with independent-minded, knowledgeable and experienced advisers who would tell the president what he needed to hear, not what he wanted to hear. Sometimes presidents would take their advice, sometimes not. But they always listened.

The world we confront is too perilous and too complex to have as president a man who believes he, and he alone, has all the answers and has no need to listen to anyone. In domestic affairs, there are many checks on what a president can do; in national security there are few constraints. A thin-skinned, temperamental, shoot-from-the-hip and lip, uninformed commander-in-chief is too great a risk for America.

I understand the broad anger and frustration against political leaders in both parties. I have written about my disgust as secretary of defense as I watched politicians repeatedly place re-election above the nation’s best interests. Polls make clear that most Americans are dissatisfied with the two major party candidates for president. But as I used to say in the Pentagon, we are where we are—not where we might wish to be. We have to make a decision. Perhaps the debates, if the candidates focus on substance rather than personal attacks, will clarify the choice.

Mrs. Clinton has time before the election to address forthrightly her trustworthiness, to reassure people about her judgment, to demonstrate her willingness to stake out one or more positions on national security at odds with her party’s conventional wisdom, and to speak beyond generalities about how she would deal with China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, the Middle East—and international trade. Whether and how she addresses these issues will, I believe, affect how many people vote—including me.

At least on national security, I believe Mr. Trump is beyond repair. He is stubbornly uninformed about the world and how to lead our country and government, and temperamentally unsuited to lead our men and women in uniform. He is unqualified and unfit to be commander-in-chief.

Mr. Gates served eight presidents over 50 years, most recently as secretary of defense under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13935


« Reply #1465 on: September 20, 2016, 11:57:15 AM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaqGBF9nUb8

#Invalid YouTube Link#

Trump=Al Czervik
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6021


« Reply #1466 on: September 20, 2016, 03:09:20 PM »

The opinions of Robert Gates are certainly interesting and valuable.
One opinion I notice is remarkably absent is his assessment of Bama who is supposedly so thoughtful and deliberate?

Bama was at the helm for 8 yrs while the international situation has become more complex .  He hasn't helped from my armchair.

So what say Gates?

So WHO does he think would have been able to do anything about it?



« Last Edit: September 20, 2016, 03:42:04 PM by ccp » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8238


« Reply #1467 on: September 20, 2016, 04:45:18 PM »

ccp,  Your post reminds me that I wrote this, this morning, and it didn't post.  (I am getting filtered out of posting on the forum by McDonald's wifi!)  It looks like our views overlap considerably.
------------------------------------------------------
My comments on Gates opinions:

Gates hates Trump but this is no ringing endorsement of Hillary.

First of his criticisms of Trump is the wall: "He [Trump] has expressed support for building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico".  Yes he has.  The Secretary of Defense opposes border security?  He has a better plan?  If so, mum's the word.  Didn't even enforce the last border fence act passed by congress and signed by a previous President he served.  This is not his department?

Defeating TPP is a political, economic win for China?  Maybe true if TPP was a trade agreement.  What about all the clauses giving up American sovereignty.  We don't know Gates' values and vision in this regard, but they probably don't match mine.  He did happily agree to serve on under Pres Obama and has rarely, openly differed with him, even in his profit-seeking tell-all.

"Dealing effectively with China requires a president with strategic acumen and vision, nuance, deft diplomatic and political skill, and sound instincts on when to challenge, when to stay silent and when to compromise or partner."

Or to put it differently, more of the same, the status quo, the unwillingness or inability to confront a rival and potential enemy that has led to where we are now.  Are we satisfied with where we are now, China in expansionary mode, America in retreat?  Wasting our money on a readiness that everyone knows we are unwilling to use.

North Korea:  The establishment, diplomatic status quo, America walking softly has led us to where we are, NK ready to reach the US mainland with nuclear warheads shortly.  Under their non-provocation doctrine previously we wouldn't have missile defense either.  That came from a President willing to poke the eye of the adversary's position.  There is an upside risk that in dealing tougher with the Chinese, Trump could get China to shut down the NK threat so we don't have to.  There is also the risk he sets off nuclear war.  No one wants that - ever - but I would rather have it now than after our adversaries pass up our capabilities and defeat us.

Iran:  While Gates pretends to speak out candidly - to sell books - he tapdances around what a historic failure this Iran agreement is.  Trump doesn't.  He has been right about it all along, the cash payments, the wrongful removal of sanctions, the support of terrorism and the path to Iran becoming a nuclear power UNDER THIS AGREEMENT.  In this regard alone, Trump looks clairvoyant and Gates looks either ignorant or afraid to speak out his former boss.

Gates: "whatever value Mr. Obama’s nuclear agreement has brought, the deal has led to no decrease in Iran’s aggressive meddling in the Middle East nor any lessening of its hostility to the U.S. Iranian naval challenges to U.S. warship operations in the Persian Gulf have nearly doubled over the last year."

WHAT VALUE DID IT BRING? (the Iran agreement)  Gates in this regard (and TPP/sovereignty) is part of the establishment potentially getting kicked out.  When Bush/Cheney failed to take out Iran's nuclear sites militarily, Iran gained 8 years of nuclear weapons progress.  Under Obama's agreement, they gained financing and legitimacy.  Trump would at least stop sending them cash.

Gates refers to "the boiling caldron that is today’s Middle East."  Exactly right.  That is HIS legacy.  He should own it, tell us where the last 8 years went wrong, against his advice, or STFU and go quietly away as others take a turn at this.

One problem with evaluating these two candidates is that their words unlikely describe how they will govern, lead the military or handle conflicts.  Trump speaks sometimes as a dove, wants to sit out some conflicts in the Middle East.  Except when he says destroy ISIS, bring back water boarding etc.  He probably won't sit still while threats to the US are forming in the region.  Hillary served as a so-called hawk in a dove administration, now courts the anti-war Bernie vote.  Build bridges here instead - for them to blow up.  Trump isn't going to sit still while Russia or the Caliphate take over the Middle East, nor is Hillary going to put hawk or dove ideologies ahead of the immense opportunities to buy and sell favors around the world.

[Gates on Trump] "a man who believes he, and he alone, has all the answers and has no need to listen to anyone. In domestic affairs, there are many checks on what a president can do; in national security there are few constraints. A thin-skinned, temperamental, shoot-from-the-hip and lip, uninformed commander-in-chief is too great a risk for America."

'I alone' sounded awkward when I've heard Trump say something like that.  What he obviously meant is that in the job at the top, you are alone.  Some advisers say invade, others urge restraint, one person makes the final decision.  It's lonely at the top in my business of one, probably more so to be a wartime President.  Shoot from the hip is exactly what Hillary did in Libya.  She gained Obama's go-ahead without winning his support.  Never took it to Congress AS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION, never planned for the aftermath.  Now Pres. Obama considers it his biggest failure, her mission.  Yet they keep scratching each other's back.

As Gates states or implies, lots of past Presidents had political bravado and a lack of detailed knowledge of military details and the dangers around the world before getting elected.  Then we elevate one of them to Commander in Chief and each transforms into a President with enormous responsibilities in their own way, think Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter.  That Trump won't seek out military advice from the best experts he can call together, that he will make strategic, war starting or response decisions all alone without consulting with Generals or advisers is buffoonery.

Totally missing in the microscope of this former defense secretary is what kind of country are you defending.  One candidate seeks American strength and greatness.  The other seeks to neuter us down to rest-of-the-world mediocrity.  Military strength is tied to economic strength, among other things.  Even the Soviets and the PRC know that.  Yet Gates limits his analysis to assuming those factors are equal or irrelevant, maybe above his pay grade.  He is wrong to ignore that.

Every four years we take the risk of elevating someone to the level of Commander in Chief or leader of the free world as we used to call it before Obama.  If Gates thinks only he knows better than the eight Presidents he served and better than the two now running, then he can run.  For the rest of us, the choice is down to two people.  Choose wisely.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6021


« Reply #1468 on: September 20, 2016, 04:53:23 PM »

"Each of these challenges may require the use of the American military, the most powerful the world has ever seen. The president commands some two million men and women in uniform, and every previous president would attest that the decision to put those lives at risk is the weightiest burden of office. Yet neither candidate has seriously addressed how he or she thinks about the military, the use of military force, the criteria they would apply before sending that force into battle, or broader questions of peace and war. Based on what each candidate has said and done, who can we trust with the lives of young Americans in uniform?"

Well Trump DARED to simply ask what about nucs?

And what did he get for this?

Mocked!!!  I am sure Gates was one of them doing the mocking.



Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8238


« Reply #1469 on: September 21, 2016, 06:28:57 AM »

Clinton down 6, Trump up 6, 12 point move.
http://jpupdates.com/2016/09/20/jewish-support-for-clinton-drops-in-ny/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6021


« Reply #1470 on: September 21, 2016, 07:52:54 AM »

"Clinton down 6, Trump up 6, 12 point move."

Wow I am shocked  shocked shocked shocked shocked shocked shocked shocked but happy to see this.   grin  grin grin grin grin grin

I am curious as to why this is happening ?? (if hopefully really true).  Maybe God and country IS STILL more important than the Democrat Party .


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37753


« Reply #1471 on: September 21, 2016, 01:12:00 PM »

http://www.wsj.com/articles/its-still-clintons-race-to-lose-1474413142

It’s Still Clinton’s Race to Lose
Only 38% of likely voters think Donald Trump is ‘qualified’ for the presidency.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 477


« Reply #1472 on: September 21, 2016, 10:27:17 PM »

I've told you guys that Mexicans are actively working against Trump.

here you have the most famous singer in the entire history of Mexico, who took the time to make a video expressly supporting Hillary.

If you think this hasn't been heard by 80% of the Latino community here, and there you're crazy.

People here will understand enough Spanish to get the just of it.

https://www.facebook.com/PuroZacatecasSax/videos/1314173215310012/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED
« Last Edit: September 22, 2016, 10:47:10 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37753


« Reply #1473 on: September 22, 2016, 10:49:47 AM »

I thought Mexico/Mexicans didn't believe in meddling in other people's internal affairs , , ,  tongue

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6021


« Reply #1474 on: September 22, 2016, 06:15:52 PM »

Everyone expects Trump to blow his stack in the debates .  If he can get Shrillery to do this that would be very wise:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/clinton-why-arent-i-50-points-ahead-of-trump/2016/09/21/d9142b3e-8072-11e6-9578-558cc125c7ba_video.html

Doesn't this make one think that if this were a different time or a different day she would not be the type to take political enemies in a back room and put a bullet in their head?

She is inherently evil.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37753


« Reply #1475 on: September 22, 2016, 09:09:47 PM »

 cheesy cheesy cheesy
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 477


« Reply #1476 on: September 23, 2016, 09:01:18 AM »

I thought Mexico/Mexicans didn't believe in meddling in other people's internal affairs , , ,  tongue



Almost. They don't believe in having people meddle in their affairs. I was at base one day, talking about starting a private military company here with some brothers of mine. One of them told me, "we can't, because we are a nation of peace," vis-à-vis, we can't have something where we would be involving ourselves in another country's affairs, but they'll sure do it this way.

Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37753


« Reply #1477 on: September 23, 2016, 11:22:04 AM »

"Almost. They don't believe in having people meddle in their affairs."

 smiley
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 477


« Reply #1478 on: September 23, 2016, 11:42:22 AM »

"Almost. They don't believe in having people meddle in their affairs."

 smiley

I'll be the first to admit, the hypocrisy stings. Americans flags I have seen while here (other than at the American embassy)? Zero. They'll through you out with out so much as a court date, for the offense.
Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6021


« Reply #1479 on: September 23, 2016, 08:29:49 PM »

I am not sure why we keep having to see people in an audience at these debates.  They are distracting and serve no purpose.
As for Cuban I don't know exactly what he thinks Clinton is going to do for him.  He probably thinks he should be CTO at the WH:

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/donald-trump-troll-mark-cuban-well-positioned-1st-173502454--abc-news-topstories.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37753


« Reply #1480 on: September 23, 2016, 09:53:08 PM »

Interesting implications here on many levels:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/22/hillary-clintons-new-colder-cold-war-russia-putin-election/

I suspect she will be making a play on Monday night along this line-- to show Trump's ignorance, to continue to add to her "bromance" line of attack (with mention of his not meeting with President of Ukraine) to ask if he bombs the hell out of ISIS as promised, won't that help the Russian-Iranian axis, etc etc

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37753


« Reply #1481 on: September 24, 2016, 03:21:40 PM »

second post

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/donald-trump-bill-clinton-gennifer-flowers-presidential-debate
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!