[quote]smh_23 wrote:
By the way, it’s great to have you back around here, Cortes![/quote]
Thanks buddy! Unfortunately, I don’t have anywhere near the posting time on my hands that I used to. I’ll contribute where I can, though.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I think that what usmc is trying to articulate is that if Hillary Clinton were to run as a Republican against Bernie Sanders as a Democrat, Clinton would still not be worth voting for. Do those disagreeing with him believe that she would be worth voting for if only she were to run as a Republican? I’m almost sure that he has already stated that he does not believe that Trump is any more “conservative”(not even sure what the word means in a political context anymore) than Clinton.[/quote]
Believing Trump is in any way comparable to Hillary Clinton is preposterous. [/quote]
Yes. Trump is a blustering buffoon. HRC is competent at least, notwithstanding any ethical shortcomings she may possess. [/quote]
Because blustering buffoons successfully create and maintain multibillion dollar empires. Sure.
And because “ethical shortcomings” that blow up in your face over and over and over again do not denote buffoonery. Uh huh.
[/quote]
Consult your dictionary over the definition of buffoon. He inherited his real estate empire. Pretty difficult to fuck up a windfall that prodigious. The United States isn’t a business, it’s a nation-state. The man is in favor of a Neo-Smoot-Hawly act that would prove devastating to the US and global economy. Trump’s public behavior alone makes him uniquely unsuited to be the chief diplomat of the United States and have access to the nuclear football. He may be financially successful, but he has zero grasp of history, economics, politics, or strategy. He isn’t an expert, a dilettante, or even a novice. He’s completely ignorant of high politics. [/quote]
I don’t need to consult a dictionary, guy.
You’ve never run a business, have you? Clearly not. He turned 40 million into 10 billion. Receiving money is one thing, multiplying it 250fold and holding onto it all, while adding an enormous amount of value to our economy, is not something to be dismissed. It also demonstrates that he is highly competent in a wide range of disciplines and knows how to assemble a team of advisors and confidants to help him succeed. However, he doesn’t have to clear that bar for me. All I said was that he would be better for the USA than would Clinton. He would. Period. Clinton is a disaster.
Besides that, I don’t care what kind of knowledge of “high politics” Hillary Clinton has. There are a hundred European politicians that have deep knowledge of “high politics” who would be terrible choices to run our country. I know you worship at the altar of the K Street insider elite. These are the same assholes who run the Republican party right now. Left or right, these guys are he biggest threat our country has faced since the Cold War. At this point, someone from outside of the incestuous political cadre might actually invigorate and help to restore our crumbling post-Constitutional republic.
Of course, given your avatar, it should be of no surprise why you carry so much water for Clinton. She’s an excellent successor to that master of “high politics.” Me, I want what’s actually best for our nation. Trump ain’t it, I know that. But Clinton is what would actually be worst. [/quote]
Really? The denizens of K-Street pose an existential threat to the United States on par with the prospect of nuclear war? Who knew that PhDs in tweed jackets held so much destructive potential. Have you spent much if any time there?
Anti-intellectualism from a devotee of the tea party? Color me surprised.
Those who offhandedly dismiss Machiavelli haven’t studied and/or do not understand his work.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Obama wants what?
Smallest Army since 1940
Smallest Navy since 1915
[/quote]
Per your source, “At $595.6 billion, President ObamaÃ?¢??s proposed defense budget is just $113 million dollars less than expected per last yearÃ?¢??s budget, about a 0.1 percent drop, and calls for cuts to personnel.”
A basic understanding of force structure reveals that that this development will not affect the American armed forces’ power protection capabilities.
Bismark,
Ah what does a former General know it’s not like he’s a regular poster on T Nation.
This from about 1 1/2 years ago:
“proposed budget cuts could force roughly 90,000 servicemen and women to seek civilian jobs.”
Not only is Obama cutting the military he is also using it for social experiments
"President Obama is already weakening our military by shedding troops, weapons and ships. But even these cuts aren?t as dangerous as his misguided crusade for a gender-blind military. "
Yes, Obama is a swell guy just misunderstood by those of us on the right (cough).
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Zeb,
Why is it that you and your ilk must argue from intuition rather than utilize reliable and credible sources of information? Most Americans are pro-choice. [/quote]
Really?
You’re hanging your hat on a poll that shows your wrong, and very wrong at that just a few months ago?
I typically like your posts, even when I disagree but this is utter shit man. You can do better than this.
[quote]Tattoo85 wrote:
Obama isn’t even left wing, he’s basically conservative-light when compared to actual liberals.[/quote]
Just lol.
Demographic dependent, and appeal to popularity.
“Most Americans” could be for Jim Crow, doesn’t mean Jim Crow laws would be okay.
Bullshit leftist talking point is bullshit.
Don’t talk about taxation if you don’t understand it, and protip: you dont’.
The reason the rest of the Western world doesn’t have to spend as much is because we spend this much…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Zeb,
Why is it that you and your ilk must argue from intuition rather than utilize reliable and credible sources of information? Most Americans are pro-choice. [/quote]
Really?
You’re hanging your hat on a poll that shows your wrong, and very wrong at that just a few months ago?
I typically like your posts, even when I disagree but this is utter shit man. You can do better than this. [/quote]
The reliable and credible poll that shows that 6% more
of Americans identify as pro choice than pro life is utter shit because it doesn’t conform your own stance on the issue?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Zeb,
Why is it that you and your ilk must argue from intuition rather than utilize reliable and credible sources of information? Most Americans are pro-choice. [/quote]
Really?
You’re hanging your hat on a poll that shows your wrong, and very wrong at that just a few months ago?
I typically like your posts, even when I disagree but this is utter shit man. You can do better than this. [/quote]
The reliable and credible poll that shows that 6% more
of Americans identify as pro choice than pro life is utter shit because it doesn’t conform your own stance on the issue? [/quote]
You all talking about that Gallop poll that’s ±4%?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Zeb,
Why is it that you and your ilk must argue from intuition rather than utilize reliable and credible sources of information? Most Americans are pro-choice. [/quote]
Really?
You’re hanging your hat on a poll that shows your wrong, and very wrong at that just a few months ago?
I typically like your posts, even when I disagree but this is utter shit man. You can do better than this. [/quote]
The reliable and credible poll that shows that 6% more
of Americans identify as pro choice than pro life is utter shit because it doesn’t conform your own stance on the issue? [/quote]
You all talking about that Gallop poll that’s ±4%?[/quote]
And that was literally flopped the other way, what 36 months ago, and has shown a steady declining trend in pro-aborts.
But you know, I’m the one with the bias issues, lmao.