Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Worried about Trump with the bomb?

Clinton is the one you should worry about.

"Hillary Clinton warns that Donald Trump is "temperamentally unfit" to be commander in chief, and she may be right about that. But Clinton's eagerness to wage war suggests she is ideologically unfit for the job.

"A president has a sacred responsibility to send our troops into battle only if we absolutely must, and only with a clear and well-thought-out strategy," Clinton said last week. She has already failed that test, over and over again."

http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/08/t ... thick-head


Now THAT ism am reasonably written article...and certainly better than some silly JSO rant.

Clinton has repeatedly, for decades, supported wars all over the planet. She is a temperamental, egotistical, angry, retaliatory bitch who has consistently gone after anyone that gets in her way. Her staff fears her...and hates her.

But hey, she can LOOK calm when she rehearses, and teleprompts, her speeches, so JSO likes her.

hilldog is more of the same, only with a higher penchant for power abuse.

Cluck U wrote:Worried about Trump with the bomb?

Clinton is the one you should worry about.

"Hillary Clinton warns that Donald Trump is "temperamentally unfit" to be commander in chief, and she may be right about that. But Clinton's eagerness to wage war suggests she is ideologically unfit for the job.

"A president has a sacred responsibility to send our troops into battle only if we absolutely must, and only with a clear and well-thought-out strategy," Clinton said last week. She has already failed that test, over and over again."

http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/08/t ... thick-head


Now THAT ism am reasonably written article...and certainly better than some silly JSO rant.

That article ^ is precisely where Cluck and I intersect and meld together seamlessly (erotically even) like a Pink Floyd light show



Now over 2 trillion wasted dollars and a global region spun into even deeper chaos

The world is NOT safer
The world is not better now
Nothing of any significance was accomplished

Chizzang wrote:

Cluck U wrote:Worried about Trump with the bomb?

Clinton is the one you should worry about.

"Hillary Clinton warns that Donald Trump is "temperamentally unfit" to be commander in chief, and she may be right about that. But Clinton's eagerness to wage war suggests she is ideologically unfit for the job.

"A president has a sacred responsibility to send our troops into battle only if we absolutely must, and only with a clear and well-thought-out strategy," Clinton said last week. She has already failed that test, over and over again."

http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/08/t ... thick-head


Now THAT ism am reasonably written article...and certainly better than some silly JSO rant.

That article ^ is precisely where Cluck and I intersect and meld together seamlessly (erotically even) like a Pink Floyd light show



Now over 2 trillion wasted dollars and a global region spun into even deeper chaos

The world is NOT safer
The world is not better now
Nothing of any significance was accomplished

Wut?

I think the big difference in the two regarding foreign wars IMO is that Trump would surround himself with people more knowledgeable about the situation for consultation whereas Clinton will simply product an edict.

ASUG8 wrote:I think the big difference in the two regarding foreign wars IMO is that Trump would surround himself with people more knowledgeable about the situation for consultation whereas Clinton will simply product an edict.

I don't know, they both have titanic sized egos. What makes you think Trump would suddenly overcome his?

Chizzang wrote:Now over 2 trillion wasted dollars and a global region spun into even deeper chaos

The world is NOT safer
The world is not better now
Nothing of any significance was accomplished

Drama queen.

Grizalltheway wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:I think the big difference in the two regarding foreign wars IMO is that Trump would surround himself with people more knowledgeable about the situation for consultation whereas Clinton will simply product an edict.

I don't know, they both have titanic sized egos. What makes you think Trump would suddenly overcome his?

No question he does, but I just think he'd be a little more receptive to the opinions of his inner circle than I've been led to believe Hillary is.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Now over 2 trillion wasted dollars and a global region spun into even deeper chaos

The world is NOT safer
The world is not better now
Nothing of any significance was accomplished

Drama queen.

facts.. Not hyperbole
You'll notice I avoided comments like (Islamic relations are set back 75 years)

Chizzang wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Drama queen.

facts.. Not hyperbole
You'll notice I avoided comments like (Islamic relations are set back 75 years)

Did you now?

ASUG8 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
facts.. Not hyperbole
You'll notice I avoided comments like (Islamic relations are set back 75 years)

Did you now?

I'm trying to help AZ understand the difference between
a simple factual statement and wild hyperbole

The finger pointing at the moon - is not the moon

Chizzang wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Drama queen.

facts.. Not hyperbole
You'll notice I avoided comments like (Islamic relations are set back 75 years)

To me, saying things like, " he set race relations back 75 years" is pretty stupid. Obama hasn't done anything to quell the turmoil, especially with stupid comments like, " If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon" and the current racial climate has progressively deteriorated, but to quantify it with a time-frame like that is dumb. What makes 1941 the high water mark? Why not 1968? 1865? 1933?

Ibanez wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
facts.. Not hyperbole
You'll notice I avoided comments like (Islamic relations are set back 75 years)

To me, saying things like, " he set race relations back 75 years" is pretty stupid. Obama hasn't done anything to quell the turmoil, especially with stupid comments like, " If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon" and the current racial climate has progressively deteriorated, but to quantify it with a time-frame like that is dumb. What makes 1941 the high water mark? Why not 1968? 1865? 1933?

It's called a catch phrase... or snippet
It's designed to give idiots something to say without actually thinking for themselves

Ibanez wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
facts.. Not hyperbole
You'll notice I avoided comments like (Islamic relations are set back 75 years)

To me, saying things like, " he set race relations back 75 years" is pretty stupid. Obama hasn't done anything to quell the turmoil, especially with stupid comments like, " If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon" and the current racial climate has progressively deteriorated, but to quantify it with a time-frame like that is dumb. What makes 1941 the high water mark? Why not 1968? 1865? 1933?

It's simply a point of reference. You could say "do you think Islamic/race relations are better now than when _____ (historical event) happened? While you may only be able to argue it subjectively and anecdotally without anything factually objective it allows you a comparison period. Which comparison period you choose may draw fire, however.

Chizzang wrote:

Ibanez wrote: To me, saying things like, " he set race relations back 75 years" is pretty stupid. Obama hasn't done anything to quell the turmoil, especially with stupid comments like, " If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon" and the current racial climate has progressively deteriorated, but to quantify it with a time-frame like that is dumb. What makes 1941 the high water mark? Why not 1968? 1865? 1933?

It's called a catch phrase... or snippet
It's designed to give idiots something to say without actually thinking for themselves

Dynomite!

ASUG8 wrote:

Ibanez wrote: To me, saying things like, " he set race relations back 75 years" is pretty stupid. Obama hasn't done anything to quell the turmoil, especially with stupid comments like, " If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon" and the current racial climate has progressively deteriorated, but to quantify it with a time-frame like that is dumb. What makes 1941 the high water mark? Why not 1968? 1865? 1933?

It's simply a point of reference. You could say "do you think Islamic/race relations are better now than when _____ (historical event) happened? While you may only be able to argue it subjectively and anecdotally without anything factually objective it allows you a comparison period. Which comparison period you choose may draw fire, however.

I get that, I just think it's ridiculous. Buy putting a time-frame on it, you are clearly trying to compare (or contrast) your statement. It's politics.

Ibanez wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
facts.. Not hyperbole
You'll notice I avoided comments like (Islamic relations are set back 75 years)

To me, saying things like, " he set race relations back 75 years" is pretty stupid. Obama hasn't done anything to quell the turmoil, especially with stupid comments like, " If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon" and the current racial climate has progressively deteriorated, but to quantify it with a time-frame like that is dumb. What makes 1941 the high water mark? Why not 1968? 1865? 1933?

Actually, in 1941 the country came together as Americans to fight the Japs, Krauts, and Wops. That is probably a pretty good year to use. #RedTails

I'll address Trump first then get to Clinton.

Trump has no record in Government so there are actual decisions in this regard to reference. However, all indications are that he would be very aggressive with the use of military power in certain areas. One example is saying he would kill the families of terrorists (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/ ... -families/). Also, he has repeatedly said he will take it to ISIS. Sometimes he's said he won't say exactly what he'll do (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Donald ... id/647139/). Other times he's said he''ll bomb the hell out of them (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... _isis.html). AND, when asked about it, he would not rule out using nuclear weapons against ISIS (http://fortune.com/2016/03/23/trump-nuc ... pons-isis/).

He also...shocker...has lied about what he's said before. Like he said he very forcefully opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq and nobody can find any evidence at all that he did (his Statement in that regard rated "False" by Politifact http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... aq-war-wa/). In fact, I interpret what he said to Howard Stern early on to indicate that his biggest problem with the Iraq invasion of 2003 was that he thought George H. W. Bush should've gone ahead and gone to Bagdad to depose Hussein at the end of the first Gulf War:

In the interview, which took place on Sept. 11, 2002, Stern asked Trump directly if he was for invading Iraq.
“Yeah, I guess so,” Trump responded. “I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynsk ... ecZvRK9mOm

Pause here for a reminder of a reality associated with this situation: Donald Trump is a lying sack of shit. You cannot believe ANYTHING he says. And, yes, he lies even more frequently and unabashedly than Hillary does.

Trump also says we screwed up by participating in getting rid of Lyibia's Gaddafi but he's on 2011 video saying we should go in with our military and stop Gaddafi from slaughtering people. VERY clearly was advocating direct military intervention. Once gain: Thoroughly dishonest sack of shit. But beyond that he will do thigns just like that: He'll friggin' act like he never said things he clearly said on video and/or audio recorded for all to see.

And then there's the fact that he's emotionally unstable and immature as well as characterized by poor impulse control. Any sane person who looks at it objectively would conclude the risk of having something really, really bad happening is higher with Trump in the President's seat than ANY of the other candidates who started this season's campaign on EITHER side.

The only way to avoid that conclusion is to be a Trump zombie who continues the pattern of ignoring all of the evidence indicating the guy is bad news so that you can rationalize being a Trump zombie.

Hillary? First I agree with the way she voted on the Iraq war. This should be no surprise because I have consistently said from way back that I think George W. Bush made the correct decision in terms of how decisions are made in the face of uncertainty. Back when it was going on I posted a CIA report that assessed that Hussein would have nuclear weapons within a few years. I think it was three. It was clear that the consensus among world Intelligence agencies was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was getting close to producing nuclear weapons. When you make decisions in the fact of uncertainty you weigh the risks and benefits of being right in deciding on a particular action vs. the risks and benefits of being wrong. I think that the risks associated with failing to act IF what world Intelligence agencies believed to be true were true outweighed the risks associated with being wrong. And I think Hillary made the correct decision in voting to support Bush's proposal.

Now, I think that once that decision was made there was a need to follow through with an "as long as it takes" attitude instead of a "how soon can we get out attitude." And I think Hillary was part of an Administration that was too anxious to get out regardless of the consequences. I suspect Hillary agreed with that attitude.

But in NO way do I think she represents the kind of danger we'd have with an unstable, emotionally immature little kid who goes ape if he doesn't get his way or thinks somebody insulted him in the White House.

Uhh...Clinton says her vote for the Iraq war was a mistake.

Funny, she now says she was misled.

Speaking of misleading...it was Hillary...yup, her...that led the, "Qadaffi will slaughter his people" lie.

So, when saying Trump watned to go into Libya to stop the madman from slaughtering his people...he was using the exact words that the State Department...Hillary's State Department...was using. And they based that info on false, "intel" from a couple of wealthy Washington based Iraqis who wanted to get paid for leading the revolution that would bring investment and opportunity for themselves and their US backers.

Hillary lied. She lied to Obomba. She lied to the press. She lied to our people. She lied to everyone. And she got paid for it through her foundations.

Hillary is one of the biggest crooks that ever held political office.

Oh, but Hillary will make sound decisions as President (did you read the article, or are you simply in denial) regarding very profitable military ventures?

JSO, learn the difference between rhetoric and action:

NEW NATION, LONG WAR
Hillary Clinton’s State Department Gave South Sudan’s Military a Pass for Its Child Soldiers

AT A MAJOR CONFERENCE on South Sudan in 2011, Clinton spoke about “the opportunity to make it possible for [South Sudan’s] children to envision a different future.” Yet in that same year, the Obama administration used a technicality to gain a CSPA exemption for South Sudan, since the list of countries subject to the law that year was created before the new nation became independent. There would be no “different future” for South Sudan’s child soldiers in 2011, nor the next year, when the White House issued a waiver for South Sudan, as well as for now war-torn Libya and Yemen.

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/09/hil ... -soldiers/

kalm wrote:JSO, learn the difference between rhetoric and action:

NEW NATION, LONG WAR
Hillary Clinton’s State Department Gave South Sudan’s Military a Pass for Its Child Soldiers

AT A MAJOR CONFERENCE on South Sudan in 2011, Clinton spoke about “the opportunity to make it possible for [South Sudan’s] children to envision a different future.” Yet in that same year, the Obama administration used a technicality to gain a CSPA exemption for South Sudan, since the list of countries subject to the law that year was created before the new nation became independent. There would be no “different future” for South Sudan’s child soldiers in 2011, nor the next year, when the White House issued a waiver for South Sudan, as well as for now war-torn Libya and Yemen.

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/09/hil ... -soldiers/

Reality...JSO keeps having it hit his head...but he doesn't understand it at all.

Hillary is a time bomb. Sudan is about oil. Hello. We've poured BILLIONS into this shlthole...and, similar to her other failed foreign policy efforts, the place is out of control.

Yet she is JSO's girl.

Hey, I wonder if Politifact has any of Clinton's quotes about helping children and innocent civilians?

kalm wrote:JSO, learn the difference between rhetoric and action:

NEW NATION, LONG WAR
Hillary Clinton’s State Department Gave South Sudan’s Military a Pass for Its Child Soldiers

AT A MAJOR CONFERENCE on South Sudan in 2011, Clinton spoke about “the opportunity to make it possible for [South Sudan’s] children to envision a different future.” Yet in that same year, the Obama administration used a technicality to gain a CSPA exemption for South Sudan, since the list of countries subject to the law that year was created before the new nation became independent. There would be no “different future” for South Sudan’s child soldiers in 2011, nor the next year, when the White House issued a waiver for South Sudan, as well as for now war-torn Libya and Yemen.

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/09/hil ... -soldiers/

Baldy is going to have another apoplexy when he sees the source.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

kalm wrote:JSO, learn the difference between rhetoric and action:



https://theintercept.com/2016/06/09/hil ... -soldiers/

Baldy is going to have another apoplexy when he sees the source.

And I'm sure he'll put up a well reasoned argument of how they're wrong.

Cluck U wrote:CLINTON LIES, PEOPLE DIE.

It's like that Turk 182 slogan - "Zimmerman Flew and Tyler Knew".