Good post.
Republicans have kicked ass when opposing Obama, which shows you where the electorate stands on the issues. Some may say that we cannot get shit done with gridlock, I would ask what was the last piece of good legislation passed by both parties. Besides, laws are written by lobbyists who only have their own interests in mind, no need to give them more power than they already have.
I actually want gridlock. The less Washington does the better off we are. Especially when we have a left wing loon like Obama in the oval office. Gridlock is the only way to prevent more left wing legislation from being rammed down our throats.
What is Counter insurgency?
It’s difficult to have an intelligent discussion on the subject with someone who believes that SecState can authorize the use of military force and that Chris Stephens was the “ambassador of Libya.” You’re sounding off without even having a rudimentary understanding of world affairs, much less the events on the ground on that fateful day.
I agree, under the circumstances gridlock is favorable. Keep in mind however that the tables will turn and I don’t want a conservative president to have to resort to borderline illegal action to enact needed reform. Who was the last executive to avoid gridlock while still passing conservative reform? Reagan comes to mind for me, and it wasn’t just because he was a good negotiator with Congress. Most importantly he was a good communicator of conservative principles to the American people.
Well, ya… That’s sort of what happens whenever an ideology is put to the test.
In any case, do you have any examples that you can point me to? I’m genuinely curious here. Anyone can answer.
[quote=“zeb1, post:1702, topic:212571, full:true”]
You should have quoted my entire post. Within that post is a full explanation. Cherry picking as you did would cause me to go back and repeat the post where you cherry picked a couple of lines.[/quote]
I think I get that you consider Clinton abhorrent, and that any failings Trump may have pales in comparison to hers.
And that would answer what would effectively be the second part of my post- How some people here can support a RINO like Trump.
A RINO is probably better than a Democrat the likes of Clinton.
Ok.
But let’s come back to the first part of my post-
-That it’s, frankly speaking, horrifying that Trump needs to say such things to rile up his base.
-That, if Trump actually believes in what he says, then it shouldn’t matter whether he’s the POTUS or not.It’s still scary that a person running for POTUS would say such a thing.
Regarding your hatred of Clinton.
I don’t really give two shits whether you hate her or not. What I do care about is that you seem to be willing to hand-wave away all of Trump’s fault by simply “Clinton’s worse” or something to that effect.
The lesser of two evils is still evil. And when the two evils get to the point of being very much evil (I do not think of Clinton in as bad a light as you do, but rest assured that I don’t like her one bit either), it becomes ridiculous to always frame the two together.
At the very least, you need to own up to the fact that the evil you support has serious faults.
While I do believe that a lot of what he says is taken out of context and that the MSM are out to get him, THAT he actually said, and yes, it is absolute horseshit.
However, I do believe that in the race Trump vs Hillary, the truth, you know, is there such a thing on the table and is it of any importance whatsoever?
What he says and what he would do, well…
A failure by any metric.
That’s debatable, certainly. And your alternative is what, exactly? Wholesale, indiscriminate slaughter, horrific, myopic torture, and public displays of unmitigated barbarity?
One of the evils will be elected do you want to help choose or leave it in the hands of others?
I have “owned up” a long time ago as to who and what Donald Trump is.
The following is a quote from Clark Mindock: (Clark is a breaking news reporter for IBT)
“U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed on Sept. 11, 2012, at an American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. That attack, and the controversy that still surrounds it, was the subject of a heated and contentious House committee hearing Thursday in which Republicans accused Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton of not acting to ensure the compound was secure. During her testimony, Clinton, who was Stevens’ boss as secretary of state, pointed out that she knew him personally.”
By the way it’s difficult to have a conversation with a wet nosed spoon fed punk such as yourself who plagiarizes material. But, I will keep trying.
No not at all I think the answer is to turn and run away and allow our brave fighting men and our Ambassador to be killed like your hero Hillary Clinton did. And then of course lie to the press and the victims families and say it was all caused by a video on the Internet.
Yes…that’s the person I REALLY want to be the Commander and Chief. N O T !!
I wanted to post a list of people that I would not vote for if they were running against Hillary Clinton. But other than outright thugs, murders and other such criminal types I cannot think of anyone.
And speaking of criminal types we should form a pool and see who is closest in guessing a date when Hillary is indicted.
No? Does anyone think that would be fun?
If Stalin or Hitler were to rise from the grave and be the nominee of either party could you honestly choose between the two? Sure one may be worse than the other bUT that does not legitimize one to the degree to make a choice between the two. Furthermore in at least accepting him as the GOP nominee you are at the very least tacitly promoting him to lead your association, it would be more understandable if you were a constituent of a 3rd party deciding between the 2 but if as I assume you are a Republican your responsibility leads beyond just just the primary and into the general as well regardless of how the nominee got there.
So who has been a legend for centuries? Fucking Obama and friends sure as hell won’t be. Vlad The Impaler sure as hell is though.
You are so nescient of government, policy, and world affairs that you believe that SecState is able to order the deployment of military force, that HRC gave a stand down order, and that a military rescue was possible all in spite of the military realities that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and SecDef attested to. You can’t do so much as write Stephen’s title correctly.
Evoking Vlad the Impaler in a modern discussion of counterterrorism is meaningless. Regardless of your feelings toward the president, he is empirically the most effective terrorist hunter in the history of the presidency. His impact on history will exponentially outweigh that of a medieval prince. Bush 43 understood the nuanced approach that must be taken to combat religious terrorism, going so far as to say “Islam is peace.” Obama improved upon it.