Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

While I'm no big fan of Trump's, I think I'm going to seriously enjoy the overblown pearl-clutching between now and November, if only so I can buy up every fainting couch I can find and make a killing on eBay.

The difference between voting for Trump and voting for Hillary is like an inmate deciding who will be raping him for the next 3-5 years.

In my opinion, Hillary is the kind of cellmate that will welcome you in, tell you everything is going to be okay, and he'll watch out for you. But after you go to sleep you are suddenly jarred awake as he's on top of you.

Trump is the kind that tells you up front that you are his meat. You know what's coming, but at least you have time to relax a little first, he let's you pull down your own pants, allows you to grip a pillow and bite down on it, he might even use a little lube. Every once in a while he might even offer a reach-around.

So you reckon Trumpo will be a better president that Clinton?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
So you reckon Trumpo will be a better president that Clinton?

Mildly, yes. While I don't really trust either side at least I have a better idea of where I stand with Trump. Clinton has shown an almost impulsiveness to lie to almost everyone. Just last week in the news they were interviewing her and they asked if anyone of her staff had been served a subpoena. She flatly said "no". Turns out that not only had they been served, they had all ready been interviewed, and she dang well knew it.

Politics is like GW rules. Sooner or later the pendulum swings hard one way or the other, there is rarely a middle ground. After 8 years of Obama, I'm ready to swing the other way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another reason that I would prefer Trump is because of the Supreme Court. Obama has all ready appointed two Justices, with a third almost surely getting in. There are two or three additional Justices that are likely to retire or die. If Hillary gets to appoint them it will make the Supreme Court extremely lopsided for decades to come. I prefer a more rounded view of the court. Equal measures liberal and conservative with a dash of moderate.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
So you reckon Trumpo will be a better president that Clinton?

He will be great so great, you don't know how great he is going to be. And if the Pentagon thinks they aren't going to obey his orders despite being illegal, well just listen to him, he'll make 'em understand...

Do you feel the ground trembling slightly? Zombie Chesty Puller just started doing pushups for the upcoming real world Captain America: Civil War . Don't think so Trumpy.

Well, at least he hasn't ever knowingly given military arms to Al Queda, like Hillary has.

Remember when we were attacking Libya? In order to support that (despite vowing never to enter into an armed conflict with a country that wasn't a direct threat to us) Clinton signed off on supplying arms to rebel groups. However, intelligence reports confirmed that over half of those groups were controlled by Al Queda. Clinton knew about it long before sending weapons.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Well, at least he hasn't ever knowingly given military arms to Al Queda, like Hillary has.

And McCain, and Oliver North.


But he did say he planned on obliterating the US economy. "renegotiating your bonds" like a company does, is #1 on the hit parade after massed B29 strikes as a way to kill your economy for generations.

Just ask Zimbabwe. Oh look, they're run by a dictator too.

 Frazzled wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Well, at least he hasn't ever knowingly given military arms to Al Queda, like Hillary has.

And McCain, and Oliver North.


But he did say he planned on obliterating the US economy. "renegotiating your bonds" like a company does, is #1 on the hit parade after massed B29 strikes as a way to kill your economy for generations.

Just ask Zimbabwe. Oh look, they're run by a dictator too.

But Oliver North, Reagan and Hill are true american heroes they would never do something as bad as selling missiles to a state that just took a whole bunch of our citizens hostage

I know right. That would be unAmerican. I am sure there would have been an investigation, maybe even testimony before Congress. Can you imagine a Marine testifying that he sold arms to Iran? Imagine if he showed up...in uniform.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Well, at least he hasn't ever knowingly given military arms to Al Queda, like Hillary has.

Remember when we were attacking Libya? In order to support that (despite vowing never to enter into an armed conflict with a country that wasn't a direct threat to us) Clinton signed off on supplying arms to rebel groups. However, intelligence reports confirmed that over half of those groups were controlled by Al Queda. Clinton knew about it long before sending weapons.

While I'm not disputing that we armed at least some rebels in Syria that probably turned out to have links to Al Qaeda, or that it was sort of a bad idea to do so, or that what happened was actually a really likely outcome, laying that one at Hillary Clinton's feet seems a bit unreasonable since those decisions would have occurred a bit beyond her pay grade.

 Frazzled wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Well, at least he hasn't ever knowingly given military arms to Al Queda, like Hillary has.

And McCain, and Oliver North.

So that makes it... okay somhow

 Frazzled wrote:
I know right. That would be unAmerican. I am sure there would have been an investigation, maybe even testimony before Congress. Can you imagine a Marine testifying that he sold arms to Iran? Imagine if he showed up...in uniform.

I remember how upset I got during those televised hearings-taking up all of my precious Days of Our Lives programming time.

 Ouze wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Well, at least he hasn't ever knowingly given military arms to Al Queda, like Hillary has.

Remember when we were attacking Libya? In order to support that (despite vowing never to enter into an armed conflict with a country that wasn't a direct threat to us) Clinton signed off on supplying arms to rebel groups. However, intelligence reports confirmed that over half of those groups were controlled by Al Queda. Clinton knew about it long before sending weapons.

While I'm not disputing that we armed at least some rebels in Syria that probably turned out to have links to Al Qaeda, or that it was sort of a bad idea to do so, or that what happened was actually a really likely outcome, laying that one at Hillary Clinton's feet seems a bit unreasonable since those decisions would have occurred a bit beyond her pay grade.

He said Libya, not Syria. Syria is a completely different tar pit and staying out of it may be the best foreign policy decision this administration has made.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I know right. That would be unAmerican. I am sure there would have been an investigation, maybe even testimony before Congress. Can you imagine a Marine testifying that he sold arms to Iran? Imagine if he showed up...in uniform.

I remember how upset I got during those televised hearings-taking up all of my precious Days of Our Lives programming time.

Now what will really upset you is if you look at who was on the committee, and then see how many are still in Washington.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I know right. That would be unAmerican. I am sure there would have been an investigation, maybe even testimony before Congress. Can you imagine a Marine testifying that he sold arms to Iran? Imagine if he showed up...in uniform.

I remember how upset I got during those televised hearings-taking up all of my precious Days of Our Lives programming time.

Now what will really upset you is if you look at who was on the committee, and then see how many are still in Washington.

And if you look at the cast of Days of Our lives, most of them are still there as well "like sands through the hourglass" my butt.

Now I have that going through my head. Thanks!

 cuda1179 wrote:
Well, at least he hasn't ever knowingly given military arms to Al Queda, like Hillary has.

What you mean to say is that you're completely cool with "your side" giving arms to people who are hostile to your views... but not "their side"??

I mean, wasn't it Reagan that "gave" arms and munitions to a really tall skinny dude who enjoyed cave living?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

I mean, wasn't it Reagan that "gave" arms and munitions to a really tall skinny dude who enjoyed cave living?

No, it wasn't. Peter Bergen and several others have debunked that myth.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/bergen.answers/index.html

EDIT: From Fact Check: http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/rand-pauls-bin-laden-claim-is-urban-myth/

 CptJake wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

I mean, wasn't it Reagan that "gave" arms and munitions to a really tall skinny dude who enjoyed cave living?

No, it wasn't. Peter Bergen and several others have debunked that myth.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/bergen.answers/index.html

EDIT: From Fact Check: http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/rand-pauls-bin-laden-claim-is-urban-myth/

You mean to tell me Operation Cyclone never happened, at all??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
http://www.academia.edu/2897792/Operation_Cyclone_1979-1989_A_Brief_Analysis_of_the_U.S._Involvement_in_the_Soviet-Afghan_War


I mean, naturally the CIA and even bin Laden himself are gonna deny that they ever had any dealings with each other, and for largely the same reasons.

"But she's wrong within normal parameters!"

This may well be the most astute observation of the election yet

 LordofHats wrote:

"But she's wrong within normal parameters!"

This may well be the most astute observation of the election yet

Yeah, at least with Hillary it will just be "business as usual" in Washington. With Trump, who the hell knows what'll happen from one day to the next?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

"But she's wrong within normal parameters!"

This may well be the most astute observation of the election yet

Yeah, at least with Hillary it will just be "business as usual" in Washington. With Trump, who the hell knows what'll happen from one day to the next?

It certainly keeps life interesting.

I'm still amazed at anybody that claims that with Trump we at least know where he stands. He can't even keep the same position during the same paragraph.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

I mean, wasn't it Reagan that "gave" arms and munitions to a really tall skinny dude who enjoyed cave living?

No, it wasn't. Peter Bergen and several others have debunked that myth.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/bergen.answers/index.html

EDIT: From Fact Check: http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/rand-pauls-bin-laden-claim-is-urban-myth/

You mean to tell me Operation Cyclone never happened, at all??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
http://www.academia.edu/2897792/Operation_Cyclone_1979-1989_A_Brief_Analysis_of_the_U.S._Involvement_in_the_Soviet-Afghan_War


I mean, naturally the CIA and even bin Laden himself are gonna deny that they ever had any dealings with each other, and for largely the same reasons.

Perhaps you ought to read the document at your link, it does not contradict anything in my links. No aid to Arab Muj is mentioned. And as my links point out, there were darned good reasons for that (was not needed/would have been counter productive. )

Your wiki link even states:

According to Christopher Andrew and Vasily Mitrokhin, there is "no support" in any "reliable source" for "the claim that the CIA funded bin Laden or any of the other Arab volunteers who came to support the mujahideen."

So, I feel pretty damned comfortable in sticking with my position. How about you, are you comfortable sticking with yours?

 d-usa wrote:
I'm still amazed at anybody that claims that with Trump we at least know where he stands. He can't even keep the same position during the same paragraph.

He had an interval talking about his "unique" observation that Cruz 's dad killed JFK. In the space of twominutes, whenever the reporter cornered him, he changed his story. He changed what he was saying SIX TIMES. It was like watching John Lovett's pathological liar skit but for real.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm still amazed at anybody that claims that with Trump we at least know where he stands. He can't even keep the same position during the same paragraph.

He had an interval talking about his "unique" observation that Cruz 's dad killed JFK. In the space of twominutes, whenever the reporter cornered him, he changed his story. He changed what he was saying SIX TIMES. It was like watching John Lovett's pathological liar skit but for real.

It's been over a month, and I'm still having whiplash from trying to follow his "nuclear proliferation is bad, we need to give nuclear weapons to more countries so that they can defend themselves, nuclear proliferation is the greatest thread to our security, more countries need the bomb" answer.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm still amazed at anybody that claims that with Trump we at least know where he stands. He can't even keep the same position during the same paragraph.

He had an interval talking about his "unique" observation that Cruz 's dad killed JFK. In the space of twominutes, whenever the reporter cornered him, he changed his story. He changed what he was saying SIX TIMES. It was like watching John Lovett's pathological liar skit but for real.

Do you recall who the conducted the interview? I do love me some car crash television.

Chris Wallace I think but it could have been Chuck Todd. It was on one of the Sunday morning talking head shows.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

"But she's wrong within normal parameters!"

This may well be the most astute observation of the election yet

Yeah, at least with Hillary it will just be "business as usual" in Washington. With Trump, who the hell knows what'll happen from one day to the next?

So? Don't you think its past time to do something thats kinda crazy, but not really? I'd like Trump to do exactly what he says he will do. Its well past time to give a big FU to a bunch of people and countries.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I will mostlikely get the ban hammer for this, but I believe Islam should be destroyed, root and branch.

I don't wanna Godwin but....