General Presidential Campaign: Trump vs Hillary

theiioftx said:
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?
Click to expand...

I have a problem with the naivety of a POTUS assuming the following:
  1. The problem is as simple as "kill them and the problem is over".
  2. The military hasn't already been working towards that end.
Again, this is the same candidate that has said "I know more about ISIS than our generals" and that he has a plan but can't share that plan for fear of the enemy knowing the plan. Does anyone really believe he has a "plan"? Oh, he's also said that we'd take out ISIS and get out yet we'd somehow "take the oil" too. WTF???
 
Seattle Husker said:
I have a problem with the naivety of a POTUS assuming the following:
  1. The problem is as simple as "kill them and the problem is over".
  2. The military hasn't already been working towards that end.
Again, this is the same candidate that has said "I know more about ISIS than our generals" and that he has a plan but can't share that plan for fear of the enemy knowing the plan. Does anyone really believe he has a "plan"? Oh, he's also said that we'd take out ISIS and get out yet we'd somehow "take the oil" too. WTF???
Click to expand...
Do you approve of current way we are handling the JV? HRC advocates the same policy.

I also think Trump's comment about knowing more than generals was taken out of context. He was just emphasizing his commitment to destroying ISIS.
 
Seattle Husker said:
I have a problem with the naivety of a POTUS assuming the following:
  1. The problem is as simple as "kill them and the problem is over".
  2. The military hasn't already been working towards that end.
Again, this is the same candidate that has said "I know more about ISIS than our generals" and that he has a plan but can't share that plan for fear of the enemy knowing the plan. Does anyone really believe he has a "plan"? Oh, he's also said that we'd take out ISIS and get out yet we'd somehow "take the oil" too. WTF???
Click to expand...
What are your thoughts on a POTUS that uses a private, unsecured server to transmit classified documents that affect national security?
 
Joe Fan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Isn't "ground troops" typically a euphemism for front-line fighting troops? Are these troops primarily support troops focused on logistics and training?

Special Forces troops are never talked about. Anywhere the US is running bombing campaigns you can be assured that Special Forces is on the ground acting as spotters. This included Gulf War I per a friend of mine who spent weeks crawling around the desert spotting before Schwartskopf rolled in with the tanks.
 
theiioftx said:
Do you approve of current way we are handling the JV? HRC advocates the same policy.

I also think Trump's comment about knowing more than generals was taken out of context. He was just emphasizing his commitment to destroying ISIS.
Click to expand...

Absent troops on the ground, there was no way to handle ISIS. "Bombing them to hell" wasn't a viable option. As the Iraq army showed when they dropped their weapons and ran from Mosul and other areas a the first sign of the black flag, they weren't ready to be the ground troops. The motley crew of anti-Syrian militias were incapable of fighting a 2-front war against both ISIS and Syria. Syria used this to their advantage and refused to fight a 2-front war. They (and Russia) focused on the anti-Assad forces leaving ISIS alone.

The gains we are making now were not capable 1-2 years ago. Iraq's army/militia wasn't trained/armed, the Kurds weren't armed and mad enough and other elements weren't organized enough to chip away at the ISIS advantage. ISIS has now ceded 2/3rds of the territory they previously controlled. That's progress. Of course, that is battling them in ISIS controlled territory, which is easy compared to their global influence. That will take years if not decades of continued focus.
 
iatrogenic said:
What are your thoughts on a POTUS that uses a private, unsecured server to transmit classified documents that affect national security?
Click to expand...

I think politicians that attempt to evade transparency are abhorrent. I lost a great deal of respect for Collin Powell in this regard yesterday. Of course, abhorrent and idiocy to me are on different levels. Trump is an imbecile as proven over and over by his own statements. If forced, I'll support the corrupt leader who makes better decisions than the idiot, incapable of communicating more than bumper sticker slogans. I hate that we are subject to that choice but it's what the primary voters left us with. Given I live in Washington State, there is a very good chance I'll vote 3rd party in protest.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Absent troops on the ground, there was no way to handle ISIS. "Bombing them to hell" wasn't a viable option. As the Iraq army showed when they dropped their weapons and ran from Mosul and other areas a the first sign of the black flag, they weren't ready to be the ground troops. The motley crew of anti-Syrian militias were incapable of fighting a 2-front war against both ISIS and Syria. Syria used this to their advantage and refused to fight a 2-front war. They (and Russia) focused on the anti-Assad forces leaving ISIS alone.

The gains we are making now were not capable 1-2 years ago. Iraq's army/militia wasn't trained/armed, the Kurds weren't armed and mad enough and other elements weren't organized enough to chip away at the ISIS advantage. ISIS has now ceded 2/3rds of the territory they previously controlled. That's progress. Of course, that is battling them in ISIS controlled territory, which is easy compared to their global influence. That will take years if not decades of continued focus.
Click to expand...
If you are happy with the progress and okay with ISIS spreading to other countries including the US vote HRC. I prefer sending in the military without their hands tied behind their back to eliminate those vermin.
 
No way to fully answer this and I am not an expert equipped to do so. However, I would start with economic sanctions that would cripple any nation providing support or purchasing anything from ISIS. I would set up NATO based safe zones for refugees. Then I would begin and sustain an air campaign to obliterate nearly everything they have. Finally, ground troops would be required to finish the deal. All would be better if done as a coalition, however, I would not tie the hands of our military. I would tell them to win using any and all tactics necessary within the Geneva protocol. Yes, take the fight to them before it comes to us.
 
theiioftx said:
No way to fully answer this and I am not an expert equipped to do so. However, I would start with economic sanctions that would cripple any nation providing support or purchasing anything from ISIS. I would set up NATO based safe zones for refugees. Then I would begin and sustain an air campaign to obliterate nearly everything they have. Finally, ground troops would be required to finish the deal. All would be better if done as a coalition, however, I would not tie the hands of our military. I would tell them to win using any and all tactics necessary within the Geneva protocol. Yes, take the fight to them before it comes to us.
Click to expand...

That's fair. Keep in mind, everything "they" have is Iraqi/Syria infrastructure. Destroy the oil fields and Iraq loses it's ability to rebuild/support itself and takes another step towards a failed state. The Geneva Convention caveat virtually eliminates leveling towns in which are thousands of innocent civilians that simply chose not to leave their homes when ISIS came to town. Economic sanctions? The problem is that these are our allies (i.e. Turkey) and countries we need to enlist in the fight. Quite the conundrum.

Ultimately, ground troops are the only way to push out ISIS. If we can eliminate them without our own troops in harms way like the current Obama strategy, won't that be a success?
 
I haven't read the posts about ISIS in detail, but I read an article that said that Russia, US, Turkey, etc are holding off the final assault until they negotiate who is going to be in charge after ISIS is eliminated. Until then, they are just arresting expansion and weakening the movement.

Trump may know this and is suggesting we eliminate ISIS first and negotiate later.
 
Seattle Husker said:
I think politicians that attempt to evade transparency are abhorrent. I lost a great deal of respect for Collin Powell in this regard yesterday. Of course, abhorrent and idiocy to me are on different levels. Trump is an imbecile as proven over and over by his own statements. If forced, I'll support the corrupt leader who makes better decisions than the idiot, incapable of communicating more than bumper sticker slogans. I hate that we are subject to that choice but it's what the primary voters left us with. Given I live in Washington State, there is a very good chance I'll vote 3rd party in protest.
Click to expand...

So Hillary is not an idiot despite (1) being a lawyer, signing agreements that she understood how to properly handle classified information, and holding a cabinet level position in the Executive Branch, when she admitted that she (a) did not receive or transmit the most sensitive types of classified information over an unsecured private server, (b) that she did not understand that documents marked with a "c" indicated classified information, but thought that the "c" was just a way the government organized written information as in "a,b, c,d,e" despite the fact that there was no "a,b,d,or e" in the documents, and,(c) continuing to state that she believed she had not received or transmitted classified information on an unsecured server after the FBI stated that she had done so numerous times? Hillary is not an idiot despite forming a supposedly "charitable foundation" that accepted huge donations from foreign officials attempting tot gain favors from the State Department while Hilary was Secretary of State, after signing an agreement with the State Department specifically stating she would not engage in such unethical and possibly illegal actions? Hillary is not an idiot for trying to delete thousands of emails from a private server after being directed not to do so by a congressional committee investigating her use of the illegal server?
 
theiioftx said:
No way to fully answer this and I am not an expert equipped to do so. However, I would start with economic sanctions that would cripple any nation providing support or purchasing anything from ISIS. I would set up NATO based safe zones for refugees. Then I would begin and sustain an air campaign to obliterate nearly everything they have. Finally, ground troops would be required to finish the deal. All would be better if done as a coalition, however, I would not tie the hands of our military. I would tell them to win using any and all tactics necessary within the Geneva protocol. Yes, take the fight to them before it comes to us.
Click to expand...

Do you support killing everyone who lives in ISIS controlled territory, or just the terrorists?
 
iatrogenic said:
So Hillary is not an idiot despite (1) being a lawyer, signing agreements that she understood how to properly handle classified information, and holding a cabinet level position in the Executive Branch, when she admitted that she (a) did not receive or transmit the most sensitive types of classified information over an unsecured private server, (b) that she did not understand that documents marked with a "c" indicated classified information, but thought that the "c" was just a way the government organized written information as in "a,b, c,d,e" despite the fact that there was no "a,b,d,or e" in the documents, and,(c) continuing to state that she believed she had not received or transmitted classified information on an unsecured server after the FBI stated that she had done so numerous times? Hillary is not an idiot despite forming a supposedly "charitable foundation" that accepted huge donations from foreign officials attempting tot gain favors from the State Department while Hilary was Secretary of State, after signing an agreement with the State Department specifically stating she would not engage in such unethical and possibly illegal actions? Hillary is not an idiot for trying to delete thousands of emails from a private server after being directed not to do so by a congressional committee investigating her use of the illegal server?
Click to expand...

All of the things you mentioned make Hillary corrupt, but not an idiot. She knows she did those things, and she knows that she's lying when she refuses to admit that she did those things.

The question is not whether Hillary is a lying, corrupt sleazebag. She is. She always will be. Seattle Husker has never denied that she is, and I don't recall ever hearing him downplay how much of a sleazebag she is. I'm pretty sure he agrees with me that Hillary is a huge, slimy, disgusting sleazebag. When you talk about how much of a sleazebag she is, I'm sure he is nodding his head in agreement. I know I am. And I'm sure Husker doesn't think Hillary deserves to be president, or secretary of anything, or even dog catcher.

The question is, do we have a better alternative? Repeating undeniable truths about how sleazy Hillary is has no bearing on that question.
 
NJlonghorn said:
The question is, do we have a better alternative?
Click to expand...
Is that the question? Or is it, has she disqualified herself? Talking about alternatives has no relevance if Hillary is disqualified.

The choice should be between Johnson and Trump and anyone else.
 
Last edited:
Seattle Husker said:
Isn't "ground troops" typically a euphemism for front-line fighting troops? Are these troops primarily support troops focused on logistics and training?
Click to expand...
Let's say the mothers of this Navy SEAL (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/03/us-soldier-killed-in-northern-iraq) or these troops (https://southfront.org/syrian-war-report-july-19-2016-three-us-soldiers-killed-in-manbij/) were undecided voters.

Do you think these mothers care about Hillary's euphemisms? Maybe they would have appreciated that their sons be given the resources and authorization to prosecute the enemy and defend themselves.

A euphemism with a military history used in discussion with military personnel here and there by a political who also is a veteran is one thing. Hillary's use of euphemisms are so liberal and contrived that voters have no idea what she's talking about.

If we can eliminate them without our own troops in harms way like the current Obama strategy, won't that be a success?
Click to expand...
It sure would! So would winning the lottery!
 
Last edited:
NJlonghorn said:
Do you support killing everyone who lives in ISIS controlled territory, or just the terrorists?
Click to expand...
Try reading the post before you flame. I suggested creation of NATO safe zones in the ME. However, I would expect collateral damage. As harsh as it sounds, I prefer collateral damage there versus collateral damage in the US. ISIS must be destroyed there and as long as they use human shields, loss of innocent life is inevitable. Further, ISIS is already committing genocide as it is now. The current policy supported by Obama and your candidate HRC will never stop ISIS and will lead to more and more terrorist attacks abroad including in the US.
 
NJlonghorn said:
All of the things you mentioned make Hillary corrupt, but not an idiot. She knows she did those things, and she knows that she's lying when she refuses to admit that she did those things.

The question is not whether Hillary is a lying, corrupt sleazebag. She is. She always will be. Seattle Husker has never denied that she is, and I don't recall ever hearing him downplay how much of a sleazebag she is. I'm pretty sure he agrees with me that Hillary is a huge, slimy, disgusting sleazebag. When you talk about how much of a sleazebag she is, I'm sure he is nodding his head in agreement. I know I am. And I'm sure Husker doesn't think Hillary deserves to be president, or secretary of anything, or even dog catcher.

The question is, do we have a better alternative? Repeating undeniable truths about how sleazy Hillary is has no bearing on that question.
Click to expand...

I'll put forth a crazy concept for you:

Slimy,disgusting, sleaze bag = idiot

Of course, we are just dealing with semantics.

Maybe we'll get lucky and they will choke each other into unrecoverable comas during the first debate.
 
iatrogenic said:
I'll put forth a crazy concept for you:

Slimy,disgusting, sleaze bag = idiot

Of course, we are just dealing with semantics.

Maybe we'll get lucky and they will choke each other into unrecoverable comas during the first debate.
Click to expand...

Fromm your mouth to god's ears! I could live with Pence vs Kaine.
 
While watching this blatantly biased media coverage favoring Hillary, it is difficult to ignore the damage they may be doing to the liberal voters they favor
Click to expand...

While the media is definitely favoring Hillary, it's hard to feel sorry for Trump supporters since the media favored him in the Republican primaries and was a huge part of making him the frontrunner before a single vote had been cast.

Please stop beclowning yourself. You have no idea how he treats him employees anymore than I do.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do. Do you know what happened with Trump, the Magazine? It was setup to pay massive royalties to Trump, the individual, for the "privilege" of being allowed to feature him in every issue. It brought in some money, but not enough to cover it's expenses - expenses which included said royalties. When choosing which expenses to cover, the royalties came first, and paying the employees came last. They weren't told of this, but they found out when their paychecks started bouncing, and even after that they were strung along with lies, told it was a mistake, a temporary issue, would soon get fixed, etc. Whoops, the next paycheck bounces too. The man is a sleaze.

The federal government spends like 5 drunken sailors on their last shore leave ever. Some sort of fiscal responsibility would be nice for a change.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you weren't referring to the "Scrooge treats Cratchet like ****" part of being Scrooge-like, but the "Scrooge is tight with spending part" of being Scrooge-like. In that case, I can only assume you keep accidentally typing Trump when you meant to type Johnson.

If you think [fiscal responsibility] is asking for "the people" to be screwed over, I cannot reason with you.
Click to expand...

That is not what I think, so maybe you should start trying to reason.
 
HHD,
Yes add in her lies from getting fired on landing in Bosnia??to lying to Benghazi icy I'm families to lying telling the FBI about turning over ALL her work related emails etc etc
She made those lies to further her own agenda That dies not lead to someone who will make good decisions for the country
 
Cr_zfwXUIAApzND.jpg


SjQclIQ.jpg
 
Seattle Husker said:
Isn't "ground troops" typically a euphemism for front-line fighting troops? Are these troops primarily support troops focused on logistics and training?........
Click to expand...


Looks like we actually have closer to 6,000 ground troops in Iraq now rather than the 4,500 I cited above. Obama disguises that actual total by calling them “temporary” troops of an "indefinite period." There are more on the way and the generals responsible have asked for more (for the imminent retaking of Mosul).

On Syria, Obama "officially" authorized boots on the ground ~ a year ago. I am not clear what the legal basis is for this at of war. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/30/politics/syria-troops-special-operations-forces/index.html
 
It seems that the discussion should be a distinction between conventional ground forces, forces used for a campaign and occupation, versus special operations, forces that complement conventional forces. What I do not want to see is a commitment of US forces as an occupying force.

I will preface this next question with, I do not like HRC. That said, please explain to me a world in which Ronald Reagan (with no reference to HRC) would be cozying up to Vladimir Putin?
 
Dj?
Are you referring to BO and his announcement of a deal to work together with Putin and Russia on the Syrian conflict?
That cozying up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top