First Post-DNC Poll is Out
- Thread starter Marshal Jim Duncan
- Start date
Can we all agree that whoever loses to the other has got to go down as the worst candidate of all time?
That's an easy one. Both terrible. Heck all three are.
Saw something today on Twitter "if you don't like the right nut and you don't like the left nut then try the Johnson."
Sums up this election.
All great societies fail for the same reasons. This is a tipping point. It's now a 60 degree drop on greased linoleum.
Well. It was good while it lasted.
I look at it like this, and this is just my opinion, but I am sure get bashed , Neither is a very good candidate...........but.......there are a lot of problems in this country and the world, but there is also a lot of great things. I don;t think Hillary Clinton would be able to do a lot to fix the problems, but I do think she would keep the great things from turning bad.......Donald Trump, may fix some of the bad stuff, he is so different that he would address those problems differently than others have, but, I think he would have a very high probability of taking some of the great things and turning them bad. I think he is dangerous, very dangerous. Just the off the cuff remarks he has made has caused some damage, and , shows that he has no clue in a lot of areas
Hillary is far more dangerous.
She is dumb.
She is corrupt.
Who knows who has dirt on her and the foundation to blackmail.
The democrats saying Trump isn't qualified, only makes him more qualified to me. Politicians are getting too comfortable in Washington, on both sides. I see a guy who has created an empire, and yes when you're in the business is big as he is you are going to have your downfalls, but at least he isn't a career politician.
You have to have someone with a basic understanding of certain things, and if they don't have that understanding, they need to research it before they put it out for everyone to see, you have have someone who has respect for people and treats them accordingly,. He is already , with his comments causing our longtime stead fast allies to reevaluate their defense strategies and their posture on Nuclear weapons .
I can think of about 17 candidates who are worse than Donald Trump.
I'm more concerned with what's going on here than other places. We are perceived as a weaker nation under Obama. I guess I'm confused as to what they want. Do they want somebody that is going to go around and apologize or someone who is going to stand their ground? I look at Hillary as a self-serving narcissist who wants to be president just to say she's the president. Look at her past decisions and the outcomes. She's not any better. Hopefully, she's not one of the people as you see more fit than Trump.
Clinton = status quo
Trump = who the hell knows
This is what scares people. Go with what you know or go with what could be radically different. This is why a true liberty candidate will never win. Too much fear of the unknown. Instead, people would rather continue their existence as is.
Trump = who the hell knows
This is what scares people. Go with what you know or go with what could be radically different. This is why a true liberty candidate will never win. Too much fear of the unknown. Instead, people would rather continue their existence as is.
In todays world you have to be very concerned on whats going on around the world, if you don't, those problems become ours very quickly. Who perceives us as weaker? Its just like an interview with Newt Gingrich a couple weeks ago, he said , "Crime rates are up under Obama and people don't feel safe", the interviewer pointed out to him that crime rates have gone down under Obama, he said " well people don't feel crime rates have gone down".......how do you quantify a feeling?
People say our military isn't as strong as it was under Bush, well, I can tell you it is strong enough for what we need. The draw down of our military actually started to occur under George Bush senior. When the Soviet Union broke apart and the Warsaw Pact desolved, we went from having to defend the possibility of 10,000 Warsaw Pact T-72s coming through the Fulda Gap to battling terrorism, and worrying about smaller regional conflicts. That , along with the modernization of our forces has cut it back, but it is still the most effective in the World. Someone on the other board was mad because we didn;t do anything militarily when Russia took the Crimea, aside from dropping a few 87s in their backyard and starting WW III there was absolutely nothing we could do
Knowingly arming radical terrorists to overthrow a dictator and thinking that a democracy will replace him is so damn stupid that I can't overlook it regardless of how terrible Trump is.
uh.........every administration has done that........remember the Iran-Contra affair? , How about arming the Kurds to overthrow Hussein? We have even financed Terrorist groups that have hit our strongest allies
Yes, because Iran Contra and arming Kurds is so comparable to arming al Qaeda. What other administration overtly supplied weapons to terrorists similar to al Qaeda, you know, groups whose primary mission is to destroy the West and have actually acted on that mission?
The Reagan and Bush administration gave an estimated $40 million to Bin-Ladin and he went on to form Al-Qaeda, the IRA got most of their funding from the US, in fact a US Government sponsored Charity was sending money directly to the IRA which was planting bombs all over England at the time.........we do this kind of stuff all the time, every administration that I can remember has done that kind of stuff
I think she will win in a landslide, not that I think she is any good.
Not good at all, but he was fighting the Russians at the time, thats how they justified it...........every administration has done similar things whether they were Democrats or Republican
The IRA was not focused on terrorizing the USA. Bin Laden was not al Qaeda at the time he was fighting against the Soviets and had not told the world he was wanting to destroy the West. Two incomparable cases. Do you have any examples that are actually comparable to arming known al Qaeda fighters in Libya and Syria?
You said against the West, England is part of the West. Bin-Ladin still used the arms and money against the US. WE have always armed different groups when we think they are fighting for something we want, they usually don;t stay that way. You are trying to put all the blame on one administration, when this is a type of thing that every administration has done. Sometimes it works out for us, sometimes it does not. I mentioned Iran-Contra, we were sending arms to Iran which was supporting terrorism around the world
Didn't say I wasn't concerned with what's going on in other countries, just more concerned with what's going on here.
I wasn't necessarily referring to crime as a major issue.
A lot of people, especially on the left, seem to be more concerned with legalizing weed, making sure they can get an abortion and free shit before the overall welfare of the country. (Last I checked abortion was legal, I couldn't care less about legalizing pot and I'm tired of people wanting things for free just because they think they're entitled to it). Too many worrying about what the government can do for them.
We are perceived as a weaker nation under Obama.
Please don't take my short responses as being a jerk. I'm more of a bullet point guy. (And it's time for a Moscow Mule in the patio)
You can try to spin/warp it any way you'd like, but it still doesn't change the fact that the Obama administration (including Hillary) armed terrorists who had previously vowed to destroy the West and who had already conducted significant terrorist attacks.
Bin Laden may have used weapons and US funding against the West AFTER the fact (that's been a topic of debate), but at the time the US supposedly armed and financed his group, if that even happened, he was not considered a threat to the US. That's a BIG difference.
I don't know if the "perception" has been verbally stated, but Iran, Russia, and China have all been fairly aggressive without repercussion. Syria didn't flinch while jumping over the red line. North Korea is North Korea, but they've been a hotbed of activity lately. ISIS appears unwilling to fear the US. And it sounds like the Mexican government may be facilitating the illegal immigration on our southern border without any peep from this administration (they don't want the Central or South American immigrants).
Maybe other countries don't see the US as weaker, but it shouldn't surprise you that people perceive we are. Freaking Ketchup Boy THANKED Iran for letting our sailors go.
I have some global acquaintances, but have friends who have more and a son who has been to a few in Europe with the navy. Starting with my closest friend, who does business internationally, is often told that the world doesn't care for a strong US but cares less for a weaker one less. My son who has been to Italy twice, Spain and Portugal with the NAVY has been told the same thing. As much as some abroad and domestic may dislike it, the world needs a strong US.
Years ago I worked with a strong evangelical Christian, who was so down on our country, that he repeatedly told everyone our immoral country was going to be judged and destroyed. I'm a Chrustian myself, but finally had to tell him that beyond our faults we do a lot of great and charitable things for our own and the world. I don't look at being strong in a military sense only, although I believe it's vital for us, but also as having the means to help others.
Hope you're enjoying a good wine.
Our country got in this mess at the direction of 240 years of the status quo professional politicians. I doubt Trump can do any worse. The squealing and cries we are treated to daily are from establishment players (lobbyists, Wall Street, talking heads and others) who see their juicy revolving door gigs perhaps coming to an end or being infringed. As far as foreign governments having to reevaluate their defenses, perhaps it's time that they increase the costs of their security.
That poll isn't in the RCP average, or it hasn't been before now. I also do not see it listed on Nate Silver's rather long list of pollster's he rated from previous cycles.
Last edited:
UK, I'm totally indifferent about what the rest of the world thinks. Remember the "rest of the world" wanted hope and change and the first black president.....see how well that's worked out right. Some of the very fools that were telling me that the rodent-in-chief would change the world and I was nuts for not voting for him (2004) are the same ones now telling me they are amazed he was elected to a second term. The rest of the world blows in the breeze like ripe wheat and the only time they actually care whether we are strong is when they need our money, military or help. Time we look inward instead of outward. If we don't, then there won't be anything to look inward at and the people looking outward will be the ones who can afford to move to another country.
Germany has gotten fat off of our armed umbrella as has Japan and South Korea. They don't pay near what they need to for a healthy military and their GDP's reflect that lack of spending.
In the words of The Waterboys' mom..."Hillary Clinton is the devil." She is a pathologic liar, a steaming pile of shit as a person and thinks she's the smartest person in the room. Her hubris is astounding and that anyone thinks she is a "safer" bet than Trump is absolutely not hearing/seeing what is so evident, to even the most casual observer.
I know you've been in the military and served with NATO (please never confuse our battering with my utmost respect for your service either). But large groups that allegedly are there to ensure a safety net for the whole, generally fail (The UN and it predecessor League of Nations being prime examples). NATO is an outdated model and has been for some time. As soon as the POS president refused to put the missile shield in Poland, Russia knew they were in the drivers seat. What protest did NATO make during this move? If I remember correctly they did nothing.
Watching Russia invade parts of The Republic of Georgia (under Bush) and parts of the Ukraine (under dipshit) shows me that the world in general will keep throwing the minnows to tyrants, which simply emboldens the tyrants. This country is great because we had people that sacrificed everything to make it great and without even the assurance that they would win. The world is mostly a bunch of wussies now and almost no one wants to fight for their own dam freedom, instead they want someone else to fight for them or run to a safe space.
As far as some type of nuclear arms race......the horse faced Kerry and rodent-in-chief have all but assured that, buy handing Iran 150 billion dollars, with which they will most certainly pursue a deliverable nuclear weapon and continue to destabilize Lebanon.
Watching France now deal with muslims shows that the cream doesn't rise to the top in politics, but actually festers and sinks to the bottom where it rots and creates far more problems then it solves. Trump may not be perfect, but he definitely less dangerous than The Hildabeast and the arguments about Trump having his trigger on a nuclear devise causing angst is just flat out stupid as well. The man is incredibly calculated and not an idiot who will follow the same path as the current crop of political lemmings. Think of it like this....back in the old days when you had to trap animals for your families survival you would always look for well worn trails where you knew varmints traveled frequently. That is where you would catch Hillary, Obama, Boehner, Ryan, Schumer and the rest of those worthless shithooks. That is not where you would catch Trump....and that works for me on this particular cycle. Amazes me how business success can't be equated to political success! Its like you have to be a professional sleazebag whore your whole life to be a successful politician. I'm not buying!
Have you read the book "Paris 1919,"? It elaborates how The Treaty of Versailles all but guaranteed another conflict and that some of the brightest minds in the world (yes politicians) didn't even read the whole treaty before Germany was forced to sign it. Politicians, especially the professional type have wrought havoc and misery to whole countries and generations. Time to go a different way. Trump can't do that much damage in 4 years, if he turns out to be a certified buffoon and he certainly won't bring an end to the world and we can vote for someone else in 2020.
Germany has gotten fat off of our armed umbrella as has Japan and South Korea. They don't pay near what they need to for a healthy military and their GDP's reflect that lack of spending.
In the words of The Waterboys' mom..."Hillary Clinton is the devil." She is a pathologic liar, a steaming pile of shit as a person and thinks she's the smartest person in the room. Her hubris is astounding and that anyone thinks she is a "safer" bet than Trump is absolutely not hearing/seeing what is so evident, to even the most casual observer.
I know you've been in the military and served with NATO (please never confuse our battering with my utmost respect for your service either). But large groups that allegedly are there to ensure a safety net for the whole, generally fail (The UN and it predecessor League of Nations being prime examples). NATO is an outdated model and has been for some time. As soon as the POS president refused to put the missile shield in Poland, Russia knew they were in the drivers seat. What protest did NATO make during this move? If I remember correctly they did nothing.
Watching Russia invade parts of The Republic of Georgia (under Bush) and parts of the Ukraine (under dipshit) shows me that the world in general will keep throwing the minnows to tyrants, which simply emboldens the tyrants. This country is great because we had people that sacrificed everything to make it great and without even the assurance that they would win. The world is mostly a bunch of wussies now and almost no one wants to fight for their own dam freedom, instead they want someone else to fight for them or run to a safe space.
As far as some type of nuclear arms race......the horse faced Kerry and rodent-in-chief have all but assured that, buy handing Iran 150 billion dollars, with which they will most certainly pursue a deliverable nuclear weapon and continue to destabilize Lebanon.
Watching France now deal with muslims shows that the cream doesn't rise to the top in politics, but actually festers and sinks to the bottom where it rots and creates far more problems then it solves. Trump may not be perfect, but he definitely less dangerous than The Hildabeast and the arguments about Trump having his trigger on a nuclear devise causing angst is just flat out stupid as well. The man is incredibly calculated and not an idiot who will follow the same path as the current crop of political lemmings. Think of it like this....back in the old days when you had to trap animals for your families survival you would always look for well worn trails where you knew varmints traveled frequently. That is where you would catch Hillary, Obama, Boehner, Ryan, Schumer and the rest of those worthless shithooks. That is not where you would catch Trump....and that works for me on this particular cycle. Amazes me how business success can't be equated to political success! Its like you have to be a professional sleazebag whore your whole life to be a successful politician. I'm not buying!
Have you read the book "Paris 1919,"? It elaborates how The Treaty of Versailles all but guaranteed another conflict and that some of the brightest minds in the world (yes politicians) didn't even read the whole treaty before Germany was forced to sign it. Politicians, especially the professional type have wrought havoc and misery to whole countries and generations. Time to go a different way. Trump can't do that much damage in 4 years, if he turns out to be a certified buffoon and he certainly won't bring an end to the world and we can vote for someone else in 2020.
Last edited:
Maybe working in NATO for so many years my definition of East / West is different.........I always default back to the "Eastern Bloc" and NATO, that was the defining line.........So yes I do consider England part of the West
I totally disagree regarding NATO. NATO in its original form served its purpose but was outdated and changed dramatically with the break up of the Warsaw Pact, and continues to change.. Now NATO is the only alliance in the World capable of large scale military and humanitarian operations around the world. If not for NATO the US would be forced to do a lot of this stuff alone.
AS far as our military support of S. Korea and Japan, that may be even more important . Japan pays 55% of the cost for our forces to be there, but the most important thing about Japan is that the exits from every Russian warm water port on the Pacific are easily monitored and if needed can be neutralized from there. Japan has a very large Navy and has recently reworded their constitution so they can now participate in offensive combat operations.
