The First 100 days

We have to start somewhere and talking is better than not talking
I know we won't like most of what will come out but No talk is unproductive
 
No one certainly not LH or Bubba have been able to explain WHY any city county or state would shield Illegals( who have broken the law just by being here) from being arrested by ICE for other crimes. ICE is not arresting maids or landscapers.

Would these lefties be ok with police not arresting someone who raped someone they love?
 
Monahorns said:
I am well aware of everything you stated about the Vietnam War. The point is that we left a war in a sloppy way and it didn't lead to violence against the US. No doubt bad things happened in Vietnam and there will be bad things happen in Afghanistan when we leave.
Click to expand...

It didn't lead to violence against the United States, because the Vietnamese had no issue with us. They were just pawn in a global proxy war between the United States and the Soviet Union. Fortunately, the Soviet Union went into decline (and to a great degree because of our assertiveness and strength in other parts of the world) before they could really exploit the position of power we handed them by giving up and going home. And yes, bad things happened in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.

Monahorns said:
It is nothing like that. Japan had an army which represented their government. The government of Japan and their entire military was within scope. All of Al Qaeda was also within scope. The Taliban wasn't part of Al Qaeda and I have read that they were willing to give Al Qaeda up after 9/11. If the Taliban violently opposed the US going after Al Qaeda then they would be within scope.
Click to expand...

You can think what you will about my comparison, but you get the point. You define the enemy very narrowly. I define it more broadly. Is it possible to go to far with that? Sure it is. However, defining it broadly enough to include the actors who gave Al Qaeda safe harbor and free reign to launch terror attacks is not taking it too broadly. And we gave the Taliban the opportunity to turn over Bin Laden. They effectively told us to **** off.

Monahorns said:
That's debatable. Several of the 9/11 highjackers were Saudis. Expelling Bin Laden isn't really keeping him in line either.
Click to expand...

Yes, they were ethnic Saudis. I'm more concerned with the people who enabled them than with their ethnic background. If a bunch of Mexican radicals decide to launch terror attacks in the United States as part of an agenda of retaking Texas and Mexico kicks them out but Canada gives them safe harbor. I'm going to be pissed at Canada, not Mexico.

Monahorns said:
I am actually not advocating for attacking Saudi Arabia. So this paragraph misses the target quite a bit. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of US foreign policy. Everything you said about Saudi Arabia applies in some way to other Middle Eastern countries.

I think we should sell less weapons to the Saudis because they use them to kill civillians in Yemen. That is the main change I would like to see.
Click to expand...

I know yo're not advocating attacking Saudi Arabia, because your ideology isn't about stopping bad guys who help people harm the United States. You're pretty much OK with people doing that. It's not hypocritical though. The Taliban gave safe harbor to Al Qaeda who launched terror attacks on the United States. The Saudi government did not. It's not hypocritical to attack the Taliban but not the Saudis.

Monahorns said:
This is a different topic than what I was talking about though. Using the US Navy to police pirating has good outcomes like you state. But that doesn't mean this is the only way to protect global trade. It can be done several different ways without having the US the global policmen.
Click to expand...

It's a broader topic, but it's not really a different topic. The "global policeman" trope is a diversion. This isn't about intervening in every conflict. Whether or not to intervene is a case-by-case matter that's debatable. What shouldn't be debatable is the idea of having a strong, capable military that is in a geographic position to intervene when we need to (such as, for example, to destroy somebody who helps terrorists murder a large number of American civilians on American soil) and yes, to protect global trade both from pirates and from state actors. You suggest that global trade can prosper without that, but I don't see any examples or evidence to support that.

Since we're talking about Saudi Arabia, why do you think the Iranian navy doesn't sink oil tankers that supply the US with oil? Is it because they respect international trade? No, it's because we have significant naval forces in the area, and we'd stop them.

The entire global trading system depends on and presumes the safe passage of ships and other transport vehicles, and that safety is guaranteed by the credible threat of force by somebody. Ultimately, your view on trade and your view on defense and foreign policy are incompatible. You mostly get your way on trade, because you generally don't get your way on defense and foreign policy.
 
Yet another jobs blowout
Broad hiring, with strong wages
Big monthly uptick in earnings (9 cents/hour)
Also 2 prior months revised UP
UE rate down
Hispanic Jobless rate remains below 5%, for the 22nd straight month. Prior to Trump, there was one such month EVER (2006)
Ho hum
Poor Mika, why the long face? Good news for America is bad news for Democrats

 
Last edited:
Horn6721 said:
If I steal JoeFan's ID and use it to get a job at Walmart would they arrest me if I get caught?
Click to expand...

images
 
I watched a replay. President Trump was very impressive. I like him relaxed. What was impressive was his knowledge of all the issues. I learned he has done things the media did not cover.
I contrast his confident plans to keep our country moving forward with the way either Dem candidate comes across and l:facepalm:
Who would want a poor sad Biden suffering from dementia or a crazed communist who wants to destroy America as we all know it ?
 
Fortunately, the Soviet Union went into decline (and to a great degree because of our assertiveness and strength in other parts of the world) before they could really exploit the position of power we handed them by giving up and going home.
Click to expand...

It was inevitable. Socialism can't work. Central planning consumed the wealth of a country who had little to begin with.

And we gave the Taliban the opportunity to turn over Bin Laden. They effectively told us to **** off.
Click to expand...

I actually heard the exact opposite.

Yes, they were ethnic Saudis. I'm more concerned with the people who enabled them than with their ethnic background.
Click to expand...

Did we go after any of the wealthy Saudis and other Muslims that were giving them money? We froze Al Qaeda accounts. Never heard of accountbility for those who funded everything.

I know yo're not advocating attacking Saudi Arabia, because your ideology isn't about stopping bad guys who help people harm the United States. You're pretty much OK with people doing that. It's not hypocritical though. The Taliban gave safe harbor to Al Qaeda who launched terror attacks on the United States. The Saudi government did not. It's not hypocritical to attack the Taliban but not the Saudis.
Click to expand...

It is hypocritical to attack one group of bad guys but then to give money to another group of bad guys just because they are killing people in another nation. In my example I was talking about both governments. Taliban allowed Al Qaeda to have bases in Afghanistan. Bad. Saudi Arabia kills Yemeni citizens. Worse. But we sell weapons to the worse case.

It's a broader topic, but it's not really a different topic. The "global policeman" trope is a diversion. This isn't about intervening in every conflict. Whether or not to intervene is a case-by-case matter that's debatable. What shouldn't be debatable is the idea of having a strong, capable military that is in a geographic position to intervene when we need to (such as, for example, to destroy somebody who helps terrorists murder a large number of American civilians on American soil) and yes, to protect global trade both from pirates and from state actors. You suggest that global trade can prosper without that, but I don't see any examples or evidence to support that.
Click to expand...

I agree that we should have a strong, capable military with geographic reach. We just disagree about the optimal extent of the reach and the moral justification of military intervention in other countries' affairs. I essentially agree with Washington on that.

I suggest that global trade can prosper without the US Navy patrolling every ocean. I don't suggest there doesn't need to be naval security for shipping lanes of some nature.

Since we're talking about Saudi Arabia, why do you think the Iranian navy doesn't sink oil tankers that supply the US with oil? Is it because they respect international trade? No, it's because we have significant naval forces in the area, and we'd stop them.
Click to expand...

I don't know. I think you don't know either. I doubt the US Navy is the only holding Iran back. They too rely on the oil business for their wealth. They have incentive to play nice in the region. I don't see what they gain by sinking Saudi ships indiscriminately, other than war, whether the US is involved or not.

The entire global trading system depends on and presumes the safe passage of ships and other transport vehicles, and that safety is guaranteed by the credible threat of force by somebody. Ultimately, your view on trade and your view on defense and foreign policy are incompatible. You mostly get your way on trade, because you generally don't get your way on defense and foreign policy.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. Never said any different.

My view on trade and defense and foreign policy are incompatible? Strong on trade. Strong on defense. Foreign policy that facilitates trade and defense. It's the offense I am no so fond of.

I get my way on trade? In what way? The direction of the world today is towards trade restrictions not away. That also increases tensions and historically has led to war.
 
Monahorns said:
It was inevitable. Socialism can't work. Central planning consumed the wealth of a country who had little to begin with....
Click to expand...

Ironically enough, they survived as long as they did off their mineral production which was sold to capitalist countries. The oil crisis of the 1970s came at the right time for them, gave them another decade. There were detailed CIA papers at least back to Nixon describing their impossible system and the inevitable collapse. But it was Reagan who realized the opportunity and stuck the knife in. Reagan and the bankers (lol) - once they finally had to start borrowing from Western Banks it was really over then.

Monahorns said:
I actually heard the exact opposite....
Click to expand...

Are you sure you dont mean the Sudan? They were begging us (Clinton) and the Saudis to take him (1998 I think it was). Both refused.
 
Last edited:
Are you sure you dont mean the Sudan? They were begging us (Clinton) and the Saudis to take him (1998 I think it was). Both refused.
Click to expand...

No. I specifically read about Afghanistan. That war has been comically mismanaged.
 
Reagan said they would go down simply because they were evil. He was right.
Click to expand...

If they were evil but capitalist they wouldn't have fallen apart. The USSR would have fallen apart sooner if it wasn't be for global oil and gas markets. There were Old Right Conservatives in the 50s saying that their collapse was inevitable and that the US didn't need to worry. But they were a vast minority after WW2.

Most elites and intellectuals still thought Socialism was a great new way forward.
 
Here is what I think Trump should do about trade issues with China. I don't agree with tariffs in general and for how they affect American citizens.

What I would support is to put together a list of demands and say that until they were met for 1 year, I would allow NO Chinese citizens to immigrate to the US or buy US property. No student visas. No approval to move uncles and grandparents over. No purchases of real estate etc. NOTHING.

Comply with a set of demands of 1 year, and then those other things can be negotiated. Until then nothing. I am sure there are drawbacks because there are drawbacks to everything, but much less than taxing American citizens for buying cheap goods that they want to buy.
 
Monahorns said:
No. I specifically read about Afghanistan. That war has been comically mismanaged.
Click to expand...

Sorry I assumed your part was in response to the pulled quote which was about the "turn over" of Bin Laden. He was in Khartoum for 5 or 6 years in the 1990s. But even the Sudanese (of all people) got sick of his crap and kicked him out. Before showing him the curb, they first offered him up to Bill Clinton (and the Saudis). Both declined. Just think of how different the entire world would be now now if Clinton had stopped messing around with Monica long enough to think this through, and take possession of him from Sudan. Whether publicly or quietly, who cares now.

s-l400.jpg
 
Wont make CNN but ....
1st Black Military Service Chief
1st Indian-American Cabinet Member
1st Openly Gay Cabinet Member
1st Female CIA Director
1st Black Female General In Marines
1st Female Border Patrol Chief​
 
Just think of how different the entire world would be now now if Clinton had stopped messing around with Monica long enough to think this through, and take possession of him from Sudan.
Click to expand...

Bill's cock had more important things to do than be President of the USA.
 
I read that 8 of the largest one day sell-off's were under DJT. #Winning!

He likes to own things like "largest GDP ever." "Highest Dow ever" This comes with the territory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top