Topic ClosedGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools |
| Banned |
The credible pollsters are all saying the same. To what depths will the Hillary Campaign sink if Trump emerges from the 3rd debate with a 3-5 point bounce....... What will they fabricate to guarantee a win on 11/8? | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process  |
A good many times, the incumbent is ending his term rather unpopular, so the nominee doesn't want any "help" from the incumbent. Did El Diablo campaign for McCain? How about Clinton campaigning for Gore? Or Reagan out on the hustings for GWBush? LBJ wasn't a plus for Humphrey. Eisenhower campaigned for Nixon only starting in October, a result of age and relatively poor health. Truman campaigned for Stevenson in 1952, whistlestopping around the country like in 1948, but he was unhappy with Eisenhower more than supportive of Stevenson. Eisenhower did not defend George Marshall, his benefactor, from attacks by McCarthy, and Nixon, the veep candidate, either said or implied that Truman was a traitor, both of which Truman resented. Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me. When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown | |||
|
Member |
I'm just a bit irritated with Obama calling Trump a whiner for complaining of rigging on the same day as the videos and emails come out showing the rigging. I see that on the news but the videos and emails only here and on conservative talk radio. I hope Trump brings some of this stuff out tonight. Year V | |||
|
Member |
PSA... No need to watch the debate tonight, Trump won, based on the quality and content of his comments and responses. The Hildebeast lost based on her continuing lies and anti-American positions. You're welcome... nothing to see here... move on. | |||
|
Member |
Little Marco will vote for President Trump's SCOTUS nominees and Trump's policies. He will vote against the same for Hitlery. We can't lose sight of this fact with regard to all republicans. As mad as we are at many of them, they have blocked Obama's final SCOTUS finger to the US and they will line up with President Trump when all is said and done. Allowing dems to take over the Senate or all of Congress is a disastrously bad idea.
| |||
|
Member |
Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor spoke at the University of Minnesota yesterday. Although stating a fondness for late Justice Scalia, she delivered a telling statement of her antipathy toward his judicial philosophy. She reportedly said: "There are things he said on the bench where if I had a baseball bat, I might have used it." Link Her statement typifies what we face on the court if Donald Trump is not elected. Clinton promises to pack the court with others who would like to take a baseball bat to Scalia's judicial philosophy. Things like the Second Amendment are going to be slow-pitched straight into the sweet spot where the left will smack the cover off it. Free speech, internet freedom of communication, religious freedom, the right to keep and bear arms as well as cherished historical notions are all on the line. _______________________________ NRA Life Member NRA Certified Range Safety Officer | |||
|
Professor Smack-Down |
Wow. ---------------------------- Tony Guns in my collection: Awaiting next purchase | |||
|
| Member |
Does that include Mark Kirk? I can't stand the thought of Duckworth but I can't stand that piece of shit either. Year V | |||
|
| Member |
Used the bat on herself? Now we're getting somewhere. I wish. | |||
|
Member |
Now they're trying to peg Trump as an isolationist... link As we prepare for the final presidential debate of 2016, with its inevitable clashes over Donald Trump’s alleged groping of women and the latest WikiLeaks revelations involving Hillary Clinton, let’s pretend for a moment that we are in an alternate universe where the American people are choosing a commander in chief who may have to lead our nation through an unprecedented — and unanticipated — national-security crisis. It has happened before. In 1988, no one asked either Michael Dukakis or George H.W. Bush about Iraq during the presidential debates — yet soon the United States was called on to repel Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Similarly, in 2000 no one asked George W. Bush or Al Gore about the threat from al-Qaeda during the presidential debates — yet less than a year later, al-Qaeda had attacked the U.S. homeland and the war on terrorism dominated Bush’s presidency. Knowing this history, I asked a number of leading national-security experts what question they would ask the candidates — a question that no one is asking today but that could come to dominate the next president’s term in office. Their answers are fascinating — and terrifying. Several pointed to Pakistan as the epicenter of the next major international crisis. “Pakistan is making nuclear weapons faster than any other country on earth as its society becomes more violent, more radicalized, and more anti-American,” said former CIA and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, adding “what happens if Pakistan fractures?” Former undersecretary of defense for policy Eric Edelman points out that Pakistan has adopted “a nuclear doctrine that, like Russia’s, foresees the battlefield use of low-yield, short range nuclear weapons” and that “a nuclear confrontation or nuclear war between India and Pakistan . . . would be the most likely route to terrorists getting hold of a functioning nuclear weapon.” What would either major-party candidate do to prevent this? Others point to the vulnerability of our critical infrastructure. Retired Gen. David Petraeus, former CIA director, points out that “a sustained cyber-attack on our physical and/or virtual infrastructure . . . could prove especially challenging because of the extensive damage it would do, because there is no agreed concept for America’s response, and because it would likely be difficult to achieve unity in determining the appropriate international response.” How would the candidates handle such an attack? My American Enterprise Institute colleague Mackenzie Eaglen suggests an infrastructure attack could come not from cyberspace, but outer space. “China, Russia, and others . . . are developing and testing missiles and spacecraft to destroy or manipulate our satellite constellations, which allow for financial markets to trade in milliseconds, enable our cars and phones to help us get from point A to point B, and undergird the entirety of the US military,” she said. “How will each of you deter or fight back against a Russian or Chinese day-one space salvo?” Others suggest that the next crisis could involve East Asia. “How would you respond if there were a collision between Japanese and Chinese military forces in the East China Sea — a disputed area that the two countries patrol in close proximity?” asked former CIA deputy director and acting director John McLaughlin. “If some sort of military action ensued, Japan, as a U.S. treaty ally, could call on the U.S. for help in combating China. What would you do?” And how about this for a terrifying question: “What if a North Korean ballistic missile test goes wrong, and a missile lands in Seoul or Tokyo?” asks Michael Auslin, AEI’s director of Japan studies. Wow. With missiles having being fired at a U.S. warship off the coast of Yemen, reportedly from territory controlled by Iran-backed rebels, several experts raised frightening scenarios involving Tehran. Former CIA chief legal officer John Rizzo asked what the candidates would do if the Iranian government decides “to immediately test the new president and the resolve of Washington in its commitment to the nuclear deal” by taking “a provocative, high-profile act against the US government in the region, such as the kidnapping of diplomats or American servicemen.” Former House Intelligence Committee chairman Peter Hoekstra pointed out that “with the infusion of massive new funds from the Obama administration’s nuclear deal, Iran will have the means to establish forward operating bases for its intelligence and terror front groups in countries in the United States’ southern backyard.” What, he asks, will the candidates will do to address “the very real potential for subversive infiltration by Iranian-linked nefarious operators?” Then there is Russia. McLaughlin asked, “What would you do if Vladimir Putin used a version of his Crimea or Ukraine tactics in a NATO country that has a large Russian-speaking population, such as Estonia or Latvia? Imagine that he stops short of moving in Russian forces but manages to foment unrest among that population by covert tactics, creating a measure of protest and instability. And imagine that this leads the affected country to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, which calls on other NATO countries to come to the defense of the member under threat. How would you handle this?” The questions — and potential crises — are endless. What if Saudi Arabia collapses, plunging the Persian Gulf region into chaos? Thanks to President Obama’s defense cuts, the U.S. military now has the resources to handle just one major contingency at a time, so what if we face two? The Islamic State recently attacked a U.S. base in northern Iraq with a chemical agent— what if the terrorist group carried out a chemical or biological attack in Europe or the United States? There is no evidence that either presidential candidate has answers to these questions. Trump is an isolationist who wants to withdraw from the world to focus on building bridges and roads. And Clinton is a corrupt politician whose main achievement as secretary of state was blowing the Russian “reset” and paving the way for the disastrous Iran deal while possibly selling special State Department access to Clinton Foundation donors. With three weeks to go before voters choose the next commander in chief, we’ve yet to have a serious foreign-policy debate. We now return you to the reality show that has become our presidential election. Hedley Lamarr: Wait, wait, wait. I'm unarmed. Bart: Alright, we'll settle this like men, with our fists. Hedley Lamarr: Sorry, I just remembered . . . I am armed. | |||
|
| Peace through superior firepower  |
Oh, that's much too nuanced for leftist voters to understand. | |||
|
Don't Panic |
Votes against Harry Ried/Chuck Schumer as Majority Leader, as a minimum. Imperfection is not a hanging offense. Floridians are wise to choose the least imperfect candidate for Federal office, as are we all.  | |||
|
| Don't Panic |
Where did this end up? If your friend can resend the email it might be searchable. I'd hate to think this was made-up from whole cloth, but I guess it's possible. | |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine  |
Rubio was "Never Trump" in the primaries. Now, as of October 11, 2016, he will vote for him. http://www.usnews.com/news/art...se-than-donald-trumpThis message has been edited. Last edited by: jhe888, The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
Funny Man |
Is this the article you got in email? http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-new-yorker/ ______________________________ “I'd like to know why well-educated idiots keep apologizing for lazy and complaining people who think the world owes them a living.” ― John Wayne | |||
|
| Member |
I'm losing sleep over that one myself since I live in that damned state (IL). Lately when I get mail from the RNC I scrawl a negative message about Kirk on it and return it with no donation. I've told them that I won't vote for Kirk. Come Nov 8, though, I may just hold my nose and vote for the bastard, and hope not for the best but for the less worse. -------------------------- Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. -- H L Mencken I always prefer reality when I can figure out what it is. -- JALLEN 10/18/18 | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process |
"Politics makes strange bedfellows." Charles Dudley Warner Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me. When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown | |||
|
| Member |
Thiessen overgeneralizes Trump's foreign policy approach. Trump is in favor of engagement in a different manner. Saying that we should have protected and taken oil to keep it from ISIS is not exactly isolationist. The possible foreign policy scenarios are, as he says, endless. So, he criticizes the debate that hasn't happened yet for not addressing foreign policy adequately? The fact is, Thiessen has consistently run a no Trump line. In August, Thiessen wrote: "Pull the lever, don’t pull the lever — there is no good outcome. For many conservatives trying to decide whether to pull the lever for Donald Trump, that pretty much sums up the choice in this election." Link Anyone, like Thiessen, who says essentially, "Vote or don't vote because no matter what, it will not be good." has missed the point. There is a better and a worse choice on election day. Thiessen's point may be well taken about knowing more about foreign policy what ifs, but he's so slanted against ANY good coming of this election that he has no credibility of purpose. He seems to be actively pursuing a voter suppression effort. _______________________________ NRA Life Member NRA Certified Range Safety Officer | |||
|
| Banned |
It does seem that this is the best for which we can hope from modern-day politics. Many things are the cause, first and foremost the MSM. | |||
|
| Member |
Hearing Obama lecture Trump about "If you blame others, you don't belong in this office", only made me think of his (Bush did it) remarks. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 ... 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 ... 1312 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
Topic Closed© SIGforum 2024