Ha, Trump is all over the road with his foreign policy. And he changes his mind from one day to the next…Yep still better than Hillary.
So:
-
Two commissioned reports determined that Dresden’s value as a military was beyond “questionable”…
-
…but you simply repeat that it was “questionable” and that somehow proves you right.
I see you share Zeb’s understanding of how proof works. What, did you get an email from Liberty Patriots United explaining how Dresden was a war crime?
And we’ve covered Sherman’s March over and over in old threads, and what we concluded was that you didn’t know much about the Civil War (except what you had learned through fringe websites). Sherman’s March featured far less murder and rape than the Lost Cause loyalists attempt to portray.
As for Trump, I keep hearing he won’t really do all these atrocious things when president. Setting aside the vileness of using it to try to get elected, ok, then what? So what will Trump do? If no one believes he will do what he says, then no one has any idea what he’ll do, why vote for him, or even throw support his way?
Because he says he hates HRC, and that’s it? There’s a reason the GOP is known as the Stupid Party.
Yes, but it would be a ferocious nap.
And I see that you are still quite naive regarding what politicians say and then do. Tell me oh self professed wise man of T Nation what politician do you know of that did not throw out campaign promises which he really never meant to fulfill just to get elected.?
Interesting article about how if candidates for President were totally honest they would tell voters that they really don’t have any idea what they’re going to be able to accomplish (paraphrased from the writer).
I wish we had such honesty from both parties.
“Skills are important, principles are important, but promises, even well-intended promises, don’t really mean much.”
Edit
So is the Dresden and Sherman stuff being used to support Trump’s desire to kill women and children? Because that’s the choice we face TODAY. Do you support it?
So he’s a con-man who has supported progressives, and held progressive positions.
It is as I said earlier. Con man, or blood-thirsty wannabe. Either way, no more fit than Hillary.
Push, you know I agree with you on many things…including Obama.
However, Bush gave a speech in Moscow in front of a statue of Lenin. Reagan gave a speech in China in Tiananmen Square in front of a statue of Mao…shit happens in foreign lands.
Let’s not give the Left the impression that we live on the whim of a few internet memes, as is their wont.
You know…I think all politicians running for the highest office in the land are at least part con man. In that they are selling us all a bill of goods relative to their super duper powers to fix America’s ills. Is Trump any worse than some of the others? In some ways yes, in other ways not at all.
Have you ever changed your mind on any particular issue? I know that I have. Does that mean that I am not sincere in my new belief? Not at all.
As for Trump being no better than Hillary I must disagree vehemently.
How many times has Trump broken the law? Compare that to Hillary’s very shady 25 year public record. From Whitewater to Benghazi and now the email scandal which has some 200 FBI agents opening two separate investigations on her. The first regarding the emails. The second regarding an open corruption investigation which no doubt includes the Clinton Foundation.
Switching from character to her actual policies there is no question that a gamble on Trump is better than a sure fire loser with Hillary. She will:
-
Appoint left wing judges in the pattern of Sonia Sotomayor
-
No doubt attack the 2nd amendment when the opportunity arises. And if she can tip the court it could be bye bye to the second amendment.
-
Not speak one word about lowering the debt. And in fact she has no real answer for this.
-
Continue to worship at the foot of Global Warming blaming human beings for this and who knows where that will lead.
Say what you want about Trump, he’s a horrible choice…sure. But, he just might do many of the right things to protect his own best interests.
We know what we get with Hillary and it is shit on a stick!
Awesome…
Irrelevant comparison, because it wasn’t the intent or policy of Sherman to rape and murder. To the extent they happened, they were aberrations, not deliberate attempts to intimidate.
Sherman wasn’t targeting people - Hell, he sent messengers ahead to warn of his coming and tell women and children to flee town before he came to my waste to their production capacity. Sherman also actively avoided pitched battle - his goal was movement and destruction of property, not people.
Trump clearly wants to harm/kill people with an eye to intimidating. Sherman’s philosophy was nearly the opposite.
You couldn’t whip your own ass on matters like this, let alone anyone else’s, but in any event, I started a thread that started a great conversation about guns but I had no time to participate in once it got underway. And one of the reasons I started it (and asked the question the way I did) was because so many had so little knowledge of the history of the Second Amendment (recall, for example, how little you knew about US v. Miller and how it came to be and how it controls, since the only thing you knew about it came from the illiterate “Unintended Consequences”).
As for Dresden, if you are prepared to “defend” your claims with your usual deluge of fringe websites and confirmation bias pieces, save it. No interest.
Everyone knows candidates promise all kinds of things and don’t deliver it. That’s fine, and everyone grades in a curve. The Trump issue is different from that. No one even has a ballpark of what Trump plans on doing (so they say as a defense to his strategy of committing war crimes on day one).
Well, if that’s actually the case, it’d be plain stupid to vote for him. At a minimum, shouldn’t the nominating process get something out of candidate to see what kind of an actual president would be? And if there was any skepticism on that point, wouldn’t voters push the guy to the back of the bench in a field of what you have blabbered over and over is one of the Best! Fields! Ever!..?
Nope. You and others like you won’t laugh Trump off the stage, and instead apologize for him, defend him, make excuses for him.
And the GOP will go down in flames as a result. Trump’s rise portends ominous signs of the future of any Republican Party.
I doubt you are correct about the future of the republican party. In fact, what Trump could do, if he is successful in his bid for the White House, is start a third party which takes away republicans as well as democrats. Therefore, both parties would be changed forever. But I honestly don’t think that will happen. If elected he will fall in line…pretty much.
It seems that you are confused as to my original assertion. My claim is that Panetta owes the Clintons for where he is today. I never said he was partisan per se. He certainly owed nothing to Obama and reading your piece where he criticizes Obama is not a surprise. In fact, he has criticized Obama on a few other occasions. But, I doubt you will find much where he is attacking, or even questioning the Clintons in a major way.