Disgraceful

[AZGrizFan]

And? You voted for Romney, GW (twice), Bob Dole, GHW and Reagan twice. How does one do that and call themselves a libertarian?

I was a Republican until 2017. But I voted for a Libertarian in ‘92 because HW Bush broke his tax pledge. Actually, my proudest vote as a Republican was the one I cast for Steve Forbes (the most free-market guy in the GOP field) in the ‘96 Delaware primary. It was one of the two primaries that Forbes won.

And you saw fit to vote for Trump in ‘20 and Perot twice. Neither was a libertarian.

I’d call it a wash. But I’ll bet that both of us have voted for more libertarians than JSO.

I voted for Trump in 20 because there wasn’t a viable alternative outside of the Alzheimer’s guy, and Gary Johnson had proven to be a quack.

[Ibanez]

I was a Republican until 2017. But I voted for a Libertarian in ‘92 because HW Bush broke his tax pledge. Actually, my proudest vote as a Republican was the one I cast for Steve Forbes (the most free-market guy in the GOP field) in the ‘96 Delaware primary. It was one of the two primaries that Forbes won.

And you saw fit to vote for Trump in ‘20 and Perot twice. Neither was a libertarian.

I’d call it a wash. But I’ll bet that both of us have voted for more libertarians than JSO.

I voted for Trump in 20 because there wasn’t a viable alternative outside of the Alzheimer’s guy, and Gary Johnson had proven to be a quack.

Correction - Giant Meteor is always an alternative.

[BDKJMU]

I remember Perot on the TV as a kid.

Ross the Boss. Got about 19% of the vote the first time around, 8% the second.

Clinton is never elected in 92’ if not for Perot, and HW wins a 2nd term.

[UNI88]

I was a Republican until 2017. But I voted for a Libertarian in ‘92 because HW Bush broke his tax pledge. Actually, my proudest vote as a Republican was the one I cast for Steve Forbes (the most free-market guy in the GOP field) in the ‘96 Delaware primary. It was one of the two primaries that Forbes won.

And you saw fit to vote for Trump in ‘20 and Perot twice. Neither was a libertarian.

I’d call it a wash. But I’ll bet that both of us have voted for more libertarians than JSO.

I voted for Trump in 20 because there wasn’t a viable alternative outside of the Alzheimer’s guy, and Gary Johnson had proven to be a quack.

Gary Johnson didn't run in 2020.

Johnson was a little odd but I wouldn't call him a quack. I'll take odd over corrupt, narcissistic egomaniac.

[UNI88]

Ross the Boss. Got about 19% of the vote the first time around, 8% the second.

Clinton is never elected in 92’ if not for Perot, and HW wins a 2nd term.

Would that have been better? Clinton's presidency was one of the most successful of the last 50 years.

[AZGrizFan]

I voted for Trump in 20 because there wasn’t a viable alternative outside of the Alzheimer’s guy, and Gary Johnson had proven to be a quack.

Gary Johnson didn't run in 2020.

Johnson was a little odd but I wouldn't call him a quack. I'll take odd over corrupt, narcissistic egomaniac.

Which is why I voted for him in ‘16. Like I said, there wasn’t a viable alternative in ‘20.

[GannonFan]

Clinton is never elected in 92’ if not for Perot, and HW wins a 2nd term.

Would that have been better? Clinton's presidency was one of the most successful of the last 50 years.

Was it? You can trace the political vitriol that has plagued our politics since then precisely to his Presidency. Of course, Clinton didn't turn things sour politically all on his own, he had plenty of help in that department in a true bipartisan effort, but he and his style certainly paved the way for the scorched earth politics we are struggling with now. A lot of the economic gains during his Presidency were almost all the result of the peace dividend coming out of the Cold War and the USSR's collapse, as well as the rise of the internet. And you can argue that his letting Al Gore take the lead on dealing with the new Russian Federation and the bungling of that effort helped to lead to the conditions that let a leader like Putin emerge. Again, can't lay all the blame on the Presidency for how Russia turned out, the Russians still had plenty of say in that, but it was hardly a foreign policy success story. And I went a whole paragraph without mentioning that he went into a deposition, took an oath, and then lied in a vain attempt to protect his image. He was a really good public speaker, though, and was certainly charismatic.

[BDKJMU]

Clinton is never elected in 92’ if not for Perot, and HW wins a 2nd term.

Would that have been better? Clinton's presidency was one of the most successful of the last 50 years.

Well, if HW had won 92’, could have only served the 93’-96’ term. Then who would have won in 96? And in 00? Really could have changed the whole line of POTUSes up to now.

[UNI88]

Would that have been better? Clinton's presidency was one of the most successful of the last 50 years.

Was it? You can trace the political vitriol that has plagued our politics since then precisely to his Presidency. Of course, Clinton didn't turn things sour politically all on his own, he had plenty of help in that department in a true bipartisan effort, but he and his style certainly paved the way for the scorched earth politics we are struggling with now. A lot of the economic gains during his Presidency were almost all the result of the peace dividend coming out of the Cold War and the USSR's collapse, as well as the rise of the internet. And you can argue that his letting Al Gore take the lead on dealing with the new Russian Federation and the bungling of that effort helped to lead to the conditions that let a leader like Putin emerge. Again, can't lay all the blame on the Presidency for how Russia turned out, the Russians still had plenty of say in that, but it was hardly a foreign policy success story. And I went a whole paragraph without mentioning that he went into a deposition, took an oath, and then lied in a vain attempt to protect his image. He was a really good public speaker, though, and was certainly charismatic.

Vitriol comes and goes in politics. You could say that Nixon and Watergate was the start.

Clinton was the definitely the beneficiary of a great situation but he also took advantage of it from a budgetary perspective. If Trump gets credit for the economic records set during his administration then Clinton (and Reagan's tax cuts) gets credit for the boom during his.

[Baldy]

Clinton is never elected in 92’ if not for Perot, and HW wins a 2nd term.

Would that have been better? Clinton's presidency was one of the most successful of the last 50 years.

Clinton's first two years were a disaster. Really not that much different than Biden's so far. His horrible first two years ushered in the Conk Revolution in 1994. To Clinton's credit, he was an old school political pragmatist and that is what probably saved his presidency in 1996.

[BDKJMU]

Was it? You can trace the political vitriol that has plagued our politics since then precisely to his Presidency. Of course, Clinton didn't turn things sour politically all on his own, he had plenty of help in that department in a true bipartisan effort, but he and his style certainly paved the way for the scorched earth politics we are struggling with now. A lot of the economic gains during his Presidency were almost all the result of the peace dividend coming out of the Cold War and the USSR's collapse, as well as the rise of the internet. And you can argue that his letting Al Gore take the lead on dealing with the new Russian Federation and the bungling of that effort helped to lead to the conditions that let a leader like Putin emerge. Again, can't lay all the blame on the Presidency for how Russia turned out, the Russians still had plenty of say in that, but it was hardly a foreign policy success story. And I went a whole paragraph without mentioning that he went into a deposition, took an oath, and then lied in a vain attempt to protect his image. He was a really good public speaker, though, and was certainly charismatic.

Vitriol comes and goes in politics. You could say that Nixon and Watergate was the start.

Clinton was the definitely the beneficiary of a great situation but he also took advantage of it from a budgetary perspective. If Trump gets credit for the economic records set during his administration then Clinton (and Reagan's tax cuts) gets credit for the boom during his.

Clinton couldn’t have won the donk nomination today running on the 92’ donk platform..

[Ibanez]

Was it? You can trace the political vitriol that has plagued our politics since then precisely to his Presidency. Of course, Clinton didn't turn things sour politically all on his own, he had plenty of help in that department in a true bipartisan effort, but he and his style certainly paved the way for the scorched earth politics we are struggling with now. A lot of the economic gains during his Presidency were almost all the result of the peace dividend coming out of the Cold War and the USSR's collapse, as well as the rise of the internet. And you can argue that his letting Al Gore take the lead on dealing with the new Russian Federation and the bungling of that effort helped to lead to the conditions that let a leader like Putin emerge. Again, can't lay all the blame on the Presidency for how Russia turned out, the Russians still had plenty of say in that, but it was hardly a foreign policy success story. And I went a whole paragraph without mentioning that he went into a deposition, took an oath, and then lied in a vain attempt to protect his image. He was a really good public speaker, though, and was certainly charismatic.

Vitriol comes and goes in politics. You could say that Nixon and Watergate was the start.

Clinton was the definitely the beneficiary of a great situation but he also took advantage of it from a budgetary perspective. If Trump gets credit for the economic records set during his administration then Clinton (and Reagan's tax cuts) gets credit for the boom during his.

You can go back further than that - Election of 1800 was bad but not nearly as bad as 1824. That was a nasty election.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

Vitriol comes and goes in politics. You could say that Nixon and Watergate was the start.

Clinton was the definitely the beneficiary of a great situation but he also took advantage of it from a budgetary perspective. If Trump gets credit for the economic records set during his administration then Clinton (and Reagan's tax cuts) gets credit for the boom during his.

You can go back further than that - Election of 1800 was bad but not nearly as bad as 1824. That was a nasty election.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes. It’s cute when people think this nasty political climate is something “new”.

[BDKJMU]

He’s right..
https://youtube.com/shorts/85dmhOgFN_8

[SDHornet]

Thanks Biden.

[Ibanez]

Thanks Biden.

That's appalling. I wonder how many of those captured assets were made un-usable before we left. Did the GAO account/document that?

[AZGrizFan]

Thanks Biden.

That's appalling. I wonder how many of those captured assets were made un-usable before we left. Did the GAO account/document that?

Was there a sudden shortage of pilots, FFS? They couldn’t scrounge up 60 cargo plane pilots and at least get THOSE loaded up with some of that shit and flown out of there?

I swear to god, after our completely bungled exit from Afghanistan made our military look ridiculous, Putin said “here, hold my beer!”

[HI54UNI]

Thanks Biden.

And not one person has been fired or held accountable in any way.

[AZGrizFan]

Thanks Biden.

And not one person has been fired or held accountable in any way.

Sure there has been. The ONE active duty guy who criticized the operation. HE got court martialed and his career ended.

[Ibanez]

That's appalling. I wonder how many of those captured assets were made un-usable before we left. Did the GAO account/document that?

Was there a sudden shortage of pilots, FFS? They couldn’t scrounge up 60 cargo plane pilots and at least get THOSE loaded up with some of that shit and flown out of there?

I swear to god, after our completely bungled exit from Afghanistan made our military look ridiculous, Putin said “here, hold my beer!”

That's a great point. Our exit was a bungled mess. A colossal logistics failure. Still - how much was rendered useless before we left?

I remember being part of the pull out of Iraq after OIF and we spent months ahead of time shipping everything that made sense to Albany, GA or Bristow, CA. That included bombed out and bloody tanks, Humvees, MRAPs, etc... Some types of things we left, like office equipment w/o hard drives and network cards, broken radios, headsets, etc.. things that weren't worth the cost to send back to the states just to throw it away.

A Marine I worked with was part of the withdrawal during Desert Storm. I remember him telling us they'd dropped a lot of destroyed vehicles off the ships and would spend weeks going to broken vehicles and rendering them useless. With everything, there's a cost benefit analysis performed.

[Ibanez]

The disposition of gear to Afghanistan was perfectly fine and legal and is common place. The root cause is a weak Afghani fighting force but not our Retrograde/Disposition process.

Simply put - we ruined that country and then handed it over to a weak, ineffectual government/military.

[GannonFan]

The disposition of gear to Afghanistan was perfectly fine and legal and is common place. The root cause is a weak Afghani fighting force but not our Retrograde/Disposition process.

Simply put - we ruined that country and then handed it over to a weak, ineffectual government/military.

How did we ruin it? The place was in shambles and a haven for terrorists and extremists before we ever got there. Afghanistan was never really a tourist destination really ever long before we decided to set up shop after 9/11.

[Ibanez]

The disposition of gear to Afghanistan was perfectly fine and legal and is common place. The root cause is a weak Afghani fighting force but not our Retrograde/Disposition process.

Simply put - we ruined that country and then handed it over to a weak, ineffectual government/military.

How did we ruin it? The place was in shambles and a haven for terrorists and extremists before we ever got there. Afghanistan was never really a tourist destination really ever long before we decided to set up shop after 9/11.

Ruin might be a harsh word but our presence there for nearly 20 years didn't improve it at all.

[GannonFan]

How did we ruin it? The place was in shambles and a haven for terrorists and extremists before we ever got there. Afghanistan was never really a tourist destination really ever long before we decided to set up shop after 9/11.

Ruin might be a harsh word but our presence there for nearly 20 years didn't improve it at all.

I'm sure there's more infrastructure (i.e. roads and stuff like that) there now than before we got there. And it's not anywhere near the hotbed of terrorism that it was 20 years ago when we decided to go in and clear that out. Whether it was worth it (the lives lost, the money spent, etc) will probably always be answered in the negative, but there's certainly been improvement in Afghanistan, despite the large amount of things not improving.

[houndawg]

Would that have been better? Clinton's presidency was one of the most successful of the last 50 years.

Well, if HW had won 92’, could have only served the 93’-96’ term. Then who would have won in 96? And in 00? Really could have changed the whole line of POTUSes up to now.

Maybe. Maybe not.