General Presidential Campaign: Trump vs Hillary

texas_ex2000 said:
Being the sole superpower is expensive, but it's an investment that saves lives.
Click to expand...

Trump has LITERALLY SAID that he's not going to pay to defend other countries who don't help defray the costs of defending them. But, you know, go ahead and vote for him if this issue isn't big enough to tip the scales.
 
texas_ex2000 said:
Seattle, I don't know if we "need" more. But here are some thoughts.

Here's my perspective. Applying an analysis saying we have 10x more carriers than the next guy...why do we need more? Ignores several realities.

First, the current world order is unipolar with the United States as the sole superpower. Being the sole superpower is expensive, but it's an investment that saves lives. To have the power to call the shots and dictate the terms of battle, to have the flexibility and resources to decide when to and when not to fight saves lives. Let me put it this way...France, England, Russia, China...would LOVE to even consider whether 10 carrier strike groups was too expensive. We're fortunate that capitalism has provided us with a strong economy for our people to enjoy while also paying for the shield to protect their freedom.

Now, our position as the sole superpower is slipping. China and Russia are both engaging in a carrier building program. If China or Russia had just 5 carriers to control sea lanes and project power in their region, something completely possible, it would put our allies, our interest, and our people at much greater risk. With lives and national security at risk, this isn't just a matter of having a little more than the next guy - being a little better, it's about controlling the fight.

Second, threats we currently face today are asymmetric. The United States military, for reasons stated above, is not an asymmetric force. And while we have evolved our special forces capability to take on these threats...the power of carrier strike groups are a major force multiplier to our grunts. The ability to put a carrier off the shore of any country and provide immediate close air support, reconnaissance, search and rescue within 24 hours for our grunts on the ground is huge. You can't do that with Air Force assets. That requires foreign country clearance, treaties for bases, refueling, etc. The air support from Naval aviation saves lives. And we can do that because right now we have 10 carrier strike groups. Taking that down to like 8 severely reduces that capability. There are always carriers getting refitted/nuclear refueled (which takes several years), in workups to certify for deployment, or just getting back from deployment, etc. It would mean either carrier gaps or at sea deployments in excess of 9 months. Is the prospect of no immediate air support for special forces or troops in case of a major contingency digestible to the American people?

Third, cost of the craptastic F-35 aside, I think the evolution in UAV technology, weapon systems, and ship automation will eventually make the cost of buying and operating 10 or 12 carriers realistically about 80% of what it currently takes in real dollars. Now...to get there means we fix the f'd up procurement system. But that's not a technology or finance issue...that's a political issue.
Click to expand...


BOOM! Great post "texas_ex2000"

I just want to add something...

Who else in the world are always on scene within 12, 24, 48 or 72 hours of a natural disaster and render help? It's the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps. CAGs and MEUs are always on float in the Med, Atlantic and in several parts of the Pacific on a rotational basis. (texas_ex2000, correct me if I'm wrong)

What other country can do that???????

What other country can get on scene anywhere in the world and deliver help, water, food, first aid care???? Russia? China? India? France? Britain?

Just in my recent memory the United States can be on scene within hours or days because of our naval power exists (besides warfare) to deliver humanitarian help to other countries:

2004 Indonesian Tsunami
2010 Haiti Earthquake
2011 Japanese Tsunami (some sailors suffered radioactive sickness)
2013 Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines
 
Hearing loss due to sniper fire?
Or, was that George Soros feeding her answers?



Cr0d8G1W8AAuxpw.jpg



 
Last edited:
Hey Deez,

LA Times poll only favors Trump by 1 pt now vs the tradional polls. Very strange. Need to backtrack my claim regarding Clinton +3 is a Trump win.
 
Last edited:
Horns11 said:
Trump has LITERALLY SAID that he's not going to pay to defend other countries who don't help defray the costs of defending them. But, you know, go ahead and vote for him if this issue isn't big enough to tip the scales.
Click to expand...
:confused2:

First, I am not voting for Trump.

Second, I said being a superpower (and having 10 carriers) gives us the advantage of deciding where and when to fight AND WHEN NOT TO FIGHT (which may also save you money on a net basis). That saves lives.
 
Last edited:
theiioftx said:
Should be interesting to see if we still have Johnson supporters on the board or will they go ahead and pledge allegiance to HRC?
Click to expand...

Which was actually worse?

-- Johnson's Aleppo question?

Or

-- HRC's claim that "we did not lose a single American" in Libya? Did she really forget her own people? Or, did she simply dismiss them?


 
LOL -- Reporter to Clinton: If Trump is so bad, shouldn’t you be ‘running away’ with election?


"A reporter asked Hillary Clinton at a press conference Thursday morning why the presidential race was so close, considering her characterization of Trump as dangerous and unqualified to hold the Oval Office.

"Madam Secretary, the latest RealClearPolitics average has you up by an average of 2.8 percentage points over Donald Trump," the reporter said.

The reporter continued: "Given what you say are his historic inadequacies and his disqualification on the commander-in-chief point that you just made, shouldn't you just be pretty much running away with it at this point? ..... "

http://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-trump-close-poll-numbers-press-conference-2016-9
 
Joe Fan said:
Hearing loss due to sniper fire?
Or, was that George Soros feeding her answers?



Cr0d8G1W8AAuxpw.jpg



Click to expand...

It amazes me how Hillary Clinton, obviously an extremely well prepared intelligent person with a manical attention to detail AND A JD FROM YALE LAW SCHOOL, is randomly stupid about e-mail and national security procedures. How is someone that cares so much about her communications and puts so much time and hires so many people to set up her personal server and methodically destroys her equipment and messages SO IGNORANT ABOUT CLASSIFIED MATERIAL PROCEDURES?

Watching her look right in the camera and lie to us makes me sick to my stomach.
 
Last edited:
Joe Fan said:
LOL -- Reporter to Clinton: If Trump is so bad, shouldn’t you be ‘running away’ with election?


"A reporter asked Hillary Clinton at a press conference Thursday morning why the presidential race was so close, considering her characterization of Trump as dangerous and unqualified to hold the Oval Office.

"Madam Secretary, the latest RealClearPolitics average has you up by an average of 2.8 percentage points over Donald Trump," the reporter said.

The reporter continued: "Given what you say are his historic inadequacies and his disqualification on the commander-in-chief point that you just made, shouldn't you just be pretty much running away with it at this point? ..... "

http://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-trump-close-poll-numbers-press-conference-2016-9
Click to expand...

That should tell you why she rarely does press conferences.
 
texas_ex2000 said:
It amazes me how Hillary Clinton, obviously an extremely well prepared intelligent person with a manical attention to detail AND A JD FROM YALE SCHOOL, is randomly stupid about e-mail and national security procedures. How is someone that cares so much about her communications and puts so much time and hires so many people to set up her personal server and methodically destroys her equipment and messages SO IGNORANT ABOUT CLASSIFIED MATERIAL PROCEDURES?

Watching her look right in the camera and lie to us makes me sick to my stomach.
Click to expand...

She wasn't ignorant. She didn't give a crap. Her main priority was to circumvent FOIA. That's why she had the server. She was indifferent to all other concerns.
 
Obvious
Joe Fan said:
Which was actually worse?

-- Johnson's Aleppo question?

Or

-- HRC's claim that "we did not lose a single American" in Libya? Did she really forget her own people? Or, did she simply dismiss them?


Click to expand...

Your are obviously a sexist for questioning this.
 
theiioftx said:
Should be interesting to see if we still have Johnson supporters on the board or will they go ahead and pledge allegiance to HRC?
Click to expand...

Asking what Aleppo is doesn't bother me as much as his sloppy non-answer on what to do about Syria. Frankly, Johnson has disappointed me ever since he chose Weld as his running mate. Weld isn't a libertarian, and ever since he became the VP pick, Johnson has emphasized his social liberalism, which is where I have the most disagreement with him.

If I bail on Johnson, I won't go with Hillary. I'll vote for Evan McMullin if he's on the ballot. If he's not, I may write in Hollandtx or NJLonghorn.
 
Johnson's response was just as bad as Trump's "I know more than the Generals about ISIS" or him more recent "I'll demand a plan within 30 days to eliminate ISIS within a year". The difference between the 2 is how they reacted to their idiotic statements. Johnson immediately put out a statement recognizing his faupaux and humbly restating his answers. Trump continues on with additional bravado and surrogates that follow behind to "translate" his dumb statements typically moderating his stances.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Johnson's response was just as bad as Trump's "I know more than the Generals about ISIS" or him more recent "I'll demand a plan within 30 days to eliminate ISIS within a year". The difference between the 2 is how they reacted to their idiotic statements. Johnson immediately put out a statement recognizing his faupaux and humbly restating his answers. Trump continues on with additional bravado and surrogates that follow behind to "translate" his dumb statements typically moderating his stances.
Click to expand...
You could not honestly believe that. You really have a problem with the POTUS demanding a plan within 30 days to address a world security problem? You want him to take more time or less time with the demand?
 
Seattle Husker said:
Johnson's response was just as bad as Trump's "I know more than the Generals about ISIS" or him more recent "I'll demand a plan within 30 days to eliminate ISIS within a year". The difference between the 2 is how they reacted to their idiotic statements. Johnson immediately put out a statement recognizing his faupaux and humbly restating his answers. Trump continues on with additional bravado and surrogates that follow behind to "translate" his dumb statements typically moderating his stances.
Click to expand...
Still preferred over Hillary.
 
Clinton also said at last night's forum -- "We are not putting ground troops into Iraq ever again and we are not putting ground troops into Syria.”

We, of course, already have ~ 4500 US troops currently on the ground in Iraq, with more on the way.

And we also have admitted to having ~300 US special forces on the ground in Syria.
 
Frankly, I haven't heard anyone give a good answer on Syria. Nobody wants to come across as doing nothing at all, because everybody knows ISIS is dangerous and fears them. However, nobody wants to call for ground troops, because the public doesn't want that. The problem is that it's highly unlikely that anybody will destroy ISIS without ground troops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top