(03-24-2016 09:44 PM)Crebman Wrote:  As for me, I'm like Stink in that I'll vote for "The one I think has the best chance of beating Hillary", period.

The saddest part about this whole election season is that American society has shown itself only capable of celebrity worship. I guess the stature of the Kardashians and Jenner were warning enough of where America is.

In America's past, I don't think either party's front runner would even get a sniff of getting nominated as one is an unaccomplished slimeball and the other a bombastic political neophyte. Neither would have been deemed to be worthy enough.

However, in a celebrity worship society - this is what you get. Those are my choices as I live in a swing state, so I'm not willing to throw my vote away by voting for someone else with no chance.

that's really what it comes down to IMO....if Trump (whom I obviously support), I personally just want to see how/if he can back it up at this level....I already know what happens if anyone else wins...however, I will easily vote red regardless unless the convention turns into a cf,,,,I just won't vote at that point....and no fk'n way I vote for either on the blue side....

hell, even pat buchanan is another that is starting to understand trump.....never thought I would see that happen....

at the end of the day, one has to only acknowledge the current cultural matrix and deal with it accordingly along with a best method 'back pocket' strategy....what else really matters?

I believe a President Gary Johnson would be an honorable and fine representative of the United States.

With proper media coverage and prime-time debate stage access, I think he'd get a huge slice of the voter pie (ironically, the stereotypical "nutty" Libertarian Party would likely do best among moderates in this election). But it's the real world and he'll never get that opportunity.

(03-25-2016 09:10 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  I believe a President Gary Johnson would be an honorable and fine representative of the United States.

With proper media coverage and prime-time debate stage access, I think he'd get a huge slice of the voter pie (ironically, the stereotypical "nutty" Libertarian Party candidate would likely do best among moderates in this election). But it's the real world and he'll never get that opportunity.

I wouldn't disagree with 'that'

other than......

how in the hell would he work with the other two sides and select scotus replacements? toss in the fact he is not electable within the current construct, and it becomes 'lose all day'....

that thinking is another why hill-lair-liar is only setting another trap to fall into....

(03-24-2016 05:14 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 01:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Americans are largely ignorant and uninformed of other options.

Pretty much.

Not sure if you did this in purpose or by accident, but I never said this.

(03-25-2016 09:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 05:14 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 01:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Americans are largely ignorant and uninformed of other options.

Pretty much.

Not sure if you did this in purpose or by accident, but I never said this.

stroke that 'twang thang'

(03-25-2016 09:10 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  I believe a President Gary Johnson would be an honorable and fine representative of the United States.

With proper media coverage and prime-time debate stage access, I think he'd get a huge slice of the voter pie (ironically, the stereotypical "nutty" Libertarian Party would likely do best among moderates in this election). But it's the real world and he'll never get that opportunity.

I don't. He's weak on immigration, weak on the military, supports decriminalizing all drugs regardless of the health hazards they pose, and would further destabilize an already shaky world . He would be just as disastrous as either one of the leftists.

(03-25-2016 02:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 09:10 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  I believe a President Gary Johnson would be an honorable and fine representative of the United States.

With proper media coverage and prime-time debate stage access, I think he'd get a huge slice of the voter pie (ironically, the stereotypical "nutty" Libertarian Party would likely do best among moderates in this election). But it's the real world and he'll never get that opportunity.

I don't. He's weak on immigration, weak on the military, supports decriminalizing all drugs regardless of the health hazards they pose, and would further destabilize an already shaky world . He would be just as disastrous as either one of the leftists.

Yeah...president Trump and his nuclear possibilities and president Cruz with his carpet bombing would SO stabilize the world.

(03-25-2016 02:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 09:10 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  I believe a President Gary Johnson would be an honorable and fine representative of the United States.

With proper media coverage and prime-time debate stage access, I think he'd get a huge slice of the voter pie (ironically, the stereotypical "nutty" Libertarian Party would likely do best among moderates in this election). But it's the real world and he'll never get that opportunity.

I don't. He's weak on immigration, weak on the military, supports decriminalizing all drugs regardless of the health hazards they pose, and would further destabilize an already shaky world . He would be just as disastrous as either one of the leftists.

He is weak on immigration and military. I support his overall view on limited government, but immigration and military are 2 of the few areas where the federal government is constitutionally supposed to be strong.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

(03-25-2016 02:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 02:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 09:10 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  I believe a President Gary Johnson would be an honorable and fine representative of the United States.

With proper media coverage and prime-time debate stage access, I think he'd get a huge slice of the voter pie (ironically, the stereotypical "nutty" Libertarian Party would likely do best among moderates in this election). But it's the real world and he'll never get that opportunity.

I don't. He's weak on immigration, weak on the military, supports decriminalizing all drugs regardless of the health hazards they pose, and would further destabilize an already shaky world . He would be just as disastrous as either one of the leftists.

Yeah...president Trump and his nuclear possibilities and president Cruz with his carpet bombing would SO stabilize the world.

Isolationism worked so well with WWI and WWII didn't it?

The people who cry and moan about us being "world police" can't see the big picture. The last thing we want is for the various nations of Europe to have huge armed forces because every time that has happened in history there has been a tyrant that rises and a major war that usually ends up involving us whether we want to be involved or not. Napoleon rises to power in France and events lead to the War of 1812. Nothing needs to be said about WWI and WWII. The absolute last thing we want is a Europe re-armed much further than what it already is.

(03-25-2016 02:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 02:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 09:10 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  I believe a President Gary Johnson would be an honorable and fine representative of the United States.

With proper media coverage and prime-time debate stage access, I think he'd get a huge slice of the voter pie (ironically, the stereotypical "nutty" Libertarian Party would likely do best among moderates in this election). But it's the real world and he'll never get that opportunity.

I don't. He's weak on immigration, weak on the military, supports decriminalizing all drugs regardless of the health hazards they pose, and would further destabilize an already shaky world . He would be just as disastrous as either one of the leftists.

Yeah...president Trump and his nuclear possibilities and president Cruz with his carpet bombing would SO stabilize the world.

It's not the president's role to make the world calm. It's his role to protect America. That means killing terrorists without putting too many American lives at risk. That means air strikes, not boots on the ground and not letting the terrorists fester and grow in peace.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

(03-25-2016 02:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 02:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 02:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 09:10 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  I believe a President Gary Johnson would be an honorable and fine representative of the United States.

With proper media coverage and prime-time debate stage access, I think he'd get a huge slice of the voter pie (ironically, the stereotypical "nutty" Libertarian Party would likely do best among moderates in this election). But it's the real world and he'll never get that opportunity.

I don't. He's weak on immigration, weak on the military, supports decriminalizing all drugs regardless of the health hazards they pose, and would further destabilize an already shaky world . He would be just as disastrous as either one of the leftists.

Yeah...president Trump and his nuclear possibilities and president Cruz with his carpet bombing would SO stabilize the world.

Isolationism worked so well with WWI and WWII didn't it?

The people who cry and moan about us being "world police" can't see the big picture. The last thing we want is for the various nations of Europe to have huge armed forces because every time that has happened in history there has been a tyrant that rises and a major war that usually ends up involving us whether we want to be involved or not. Napoleon rises to power in France and events lead to the War of 1812. Nothing needs to be said about WWI and WWII. The absolute last thing we want is a Europe re-armed much further than what it already is.

I'm certainly not advocating total isolationism. My point was that the talk from Trump and Cruz has been extremely reckless.

We need a broad coalition of many states, including Muslim ones.

What good is entering into a coalition of incompetents?

(03-25-2016 02:57 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  What good is entering into a coalition of incompetents?

We run the show and use their money and their kids to die for the cause.

(03-25-2016 02:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 02:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 02:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 02:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 09:10 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  I believe a President Gary Johnson would be an honorable and fine representative of the United States.

With proper media coverage and prime-time debate stage access, I think he'd get a huge slice of the voter pie (ironically, the stereotypical "nutty" Libertarian Party would likely do best among moderates in this election). But it's the real world and he'll never get that opportunity.

I don't. He's weak on immigration, weak on the military, supports decriminalizing all drugs regardless of the health hazards they pose, and would further destabilize an already shaky world . He would be just as disastrous as either one of the leftists.

Yeah...president Trump and his nuclear possibilities and president Cruz with his carpet bombing would SO stabilize the world.

Isolationism worked so well with WWI and WWII didn't it?

The people who cry and moan about us being "world police" can't see the big picture. The last thing we want is for the various nations of Europe to have huge armed forces because every time that has happened in history there has been a tyrant that rises and a major war that usually ends up involving us whether we want to be involved or not. Napoleon rises to power in France and events lead to the War of 1812. Nothing needs to be said about WWI and WWII. The absolute last thing we want is a Europe re-armed much further than what it already is.

I'm certainly not advocating total isolationism. My point was that the talk from Trump and Cruz has been extremely reckless.

We need a broad coalition of many states, including Muslim ones.

The only European country I would trust to have a military strong enough to offer more than a token force in any "coalition" is the United Kingdom. Maybe the Poles, but I question their ability to contribute a sizeable enough force with the instability in their region. That's it in Europe.

The only Middle Eastern country I would trust can't participate in any coalition against terrorism because of who they are. If Jordan were capable of providing more than a token force I would consider them, but I would also be concerned that it would lead to destabilizing the Kingdom. I do not trust any of the remaining Muslim nations, including the Saudis.

I would trust South Korea but they can't afford to offer more than a token force because of the tinpot they have to the north. I would trust the Filipinos and the Thai, but neither are capable of providing more than a token force as well.

The Aussies are trustworthy and would continue to be a solid partner, as would the Canadians.

That's pretty much it.

(03-25-2016 02:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 02:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 02:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 09:10 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  I believe a President Gary Johnson would be an honorable and fine representative of the United States.

With proper media coverage and prime-time debate stage access, I think he'd get a huge slice of the voter pie (ironically, the stereotypical "nutty" Libertarian Party would likely do best among moderates in this election). But it's the real world and he'll never get that opportunity.

I don't. He's weak on immigration, weak on the military, supports decriminalizing all drugs regardless of the health hazards they pose, and would further destabilize an already shaky world . He would be just as disastrous as either one of the leftists.

Yeah...president Trump and his nuclear possibilities and president Cruz with his carpet bombing would SO stabilize the world.

Isolationism worked so well with WWI and WWII didn't it?

The people who cry and moan about us being "world police" can't see the big picture. The last thing we want is for the various nations of Europe to have huge armed forces because every time that has happened in history there has been a tyrant that rises and a major war that usually ends up involving us whether we want to be involved or not. Napoleon rises to power in France and events lead to the War of 1812. Nothing needs to be said about WWI and WWII. The absolute last thing we want is a Europe re-armed much further than what it already is.

Never mind that the things you mention were predominately isolated European conflicts that throughout history..just happen..and get resolved on their own. WWI was also a European conflict until we decided to get into it in 1917. There were serious peace proposals on the table at the time we entered the war that were quelched. There are plenty of scholars that agree that our entry into the war was a mistake that cost lives in WWI and probably set the stage for the things that caused WWII. In a (controversial and disputed) interview by the New York Enquirer in 1936 with Winston Churchill...He reportedly said we should never have entered the war. He later disavowed the statements and was sued for libel by the NYE. The case never got a day in court because of the outbreak of WWII. It is now a subject for speculation. The journalist however had an impeccable reputation and many in the journalist community sided with his reporting.

Im not in support of pure isolationism. I think we should be engaged economically and diplomatically with everyone....but...I submit there is PLENTY of evidence that our interventionism has caused problems. To say that isolationism is inherently dangerous is hyperbolic IMO. I think it can be...but...I think the reverse is also dangerous.

(03-25-2016 04:36 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 02:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 02:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 02:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 09:10 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  I believe a President Gary Johnson would be an honorable and fine representative of the United States.

With proper media coverage and prime-time debate stage access, I think he'd get a huge slice of the voter pie (ironically, the stereotypical "nutty" Libertarian Party would likely do best among moderates in this election). But it's the real world and he'll never get that opportunity.

I don't. He's weak on immigration, weak on the military, supports decriminalizing all drugs regardless of the health hazards they pose, and would further destabilize an already shaky world . He would be just as disastrous as either one of the leftists.

Yeah...president Trump and his nuclear possibilities and president Cruz with his carpet bombing would SO stabilize the world.

Isolationism worked so well with WWI and WWII didn't it?

The people who cry and moan about us being "world police" can't see the big picture. The last thing we want is for the various nations of Europe to have huge armed forces because every time that has happened in history there has been a tyrant that rises and a major war that usually ends up involving us whether we want to be involved or not. Napoleon rises to power in France and events lead to the War of 1812. Nothing needs to be said about WWI and WWII. The absolute last thing we want is a Europe re-armed much further than what it already is.

Never mind that the things you mention were predominately isolated European conflicts that throughout history..just happen..and get resolved on their own. WWI was also a European conflict until we decided to get into it in 1917. There were serious peace proposals on the table at the time we entered the war that were quelched. There are plenty of scholars that agree that our entry into the war was a mistake that cost lives in WWI and probably set the stage for the things that caused WWII. In a (controversial and disputed) interview by the New York Enquirer in 1936 with Winston Churchill...He reportedly said we should never have entered the war. He later disavowed the statements and was sued for libel by the NYE. The case never got a day in court because of the outbreak of WWII. It is now a subject for speculation. The journalist however had an impeccable reputation and many in the journalist community sided with his reporting.

Im not in support of pure isolationism. I think we should be engaged economically and diplomatically with everyone....but...I submit there is PLENTY of evidence that our interventionism has caused problems. To say that isolationism is inherently dangerous is hyperbolic IMO. I think it can be...but...I think the reverse is also dangerous.

Ah, so we just got involved in WWI for the hell of it? It didn't have anything to do with the fact that the Germans were sinking our merchant ships in the Atlantic, were trying to incite Mexico into war with the US several different times, and had an operative cause explosions at Mare Island Naval Shipyard and the Black Tom Depot. Nah, we did it for the imperialistic aspects of things.

(03-25-2016 03:21 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 02:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 02:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 02:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 02:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I don't. He's weak on immigration, weak on the military, supports decriminalizing all drugs regardless of the health hazards they pose, and would further destabilize an already shaky world . He would be just as disastrous as either one of the leftists.

Yeah...president Trump and his nuclear possibilities and president Cruz with his carpet bombing would SO stabilize the world.

Isolationism worked so well with WWI and WWII didn't it?

The people who cry and moan about us being "world police" can't see the big picture. The last thing we want is for the various nations of Europe to have huge armed forces because every time that has happened in history there has been a tyrant that rises and a major war that usually ends up involving us whether we want to be involved or not. Napoleon rises to power in France and events lead to the War of 1812. Nothing needs to be said about WWI and WWII. The absolute last thing we want is a Europe re-armed much further than what it already is.

I'm certainly not advocating total isolationism. My point was that the talk from Trump and Cruz has been extremely reckless.

We need a broad coalition of many states, including Muslim ones.

The only European country I would trust to have a military strong enough to offer more than a token force in any "coalition" is the United Kingdom. Maybe the Poles, but I question their ability to contribute a sizeable enough force with the instability in their region. That's it in Europe.

The only Middle Eastern country I would trust can't participate in any coalition against terrorism because of who they are. If Jordan were capable of providing more than a token force I would consider them, but I would also be concerned that it would lead to destabilizing the Kingdom. I do not trust any of the remaining Muslim nations, including the Saudis.

I would trust South Korea but they can't afford to offer more than a token force because of the tinpot they have to the north. I would trust the Filipinos and the Thai, but neither are capable of providing more than a token force as well.

The Aussies are trustworthy and would continue to be a solid partner, as would the Canadians.

That's pretty much it.

(03-25-2016 04:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 04:36 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 02:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 02:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 02:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I don't. He's weak on immigration, weak on the military, supports decriminalizing all drugs regardless of the health hazards they pose, and would further destabilize an already shaky world . He would be just as disastrous as either one of the leftists.

Yeah...president Trump and his nuclear possibilities and president Cruz with his carpet bombing would SO stabilize the world.

Isolationism worked so well with WWI and WWII didn't it?

The people who cry and moan about us being "world police" can't see the big picture. The last thing we want is for the various nations of Europe to have huge armed forces because every time that has happened in history there has been a tyrant that rises and a major war that usually ends up involving us whether we want to be involved or not. Napoleon rises to power in France and events lead to the War of 1812. Nothing needs to be said about WWI and WWII. The absolute last thing we want is a Europe re-armed much further than what it already is.

Never mind that the things you mention were predominately isolated European conflicts that throughout history..just happen..and get resolved on their own. WWI was also a European conflict until we decided to get into it in 1917. There were serious peace proposals on the table at the time we entered the war that were quelched. There are plenty of scholars that agree that our entry into the war was a mistake that cost lives in WWI and probably set the stage for the things that caused WWII. In a (controversial and disputed) interview by the New York Enquirer in 1936 with Winston Churchill...He reportedly said we should never have entered the war. He later disavowed the statements and was sued for libel by the NYE. The case never got a day in court because of the outbreak of WWII. It is now a subject for speculation. The journalist however had an impeccable reputation and many in the journalist community sided with his reporting.

Im not in support of pure isolationism. I think we should be engaged economically and diplomatically with everyone....but...I submit there is PLENTY of evidence that our interventionism has caused problems. To say that isolationism is inherently dangerous is hyperbolic IMO. I think it can be...but...I think the reverse is also dangerous.

Ah, so we just got involved in WWI for the hell of it? It didn't have anything to do with the fact that the Germans were sinking our merchant ships in the Atlantic, were trying to incite Mexico into war with the US several different times, and had an operative cause explosions at Mare Island Naval Shipyard and the Black Tom Depot. Nah, we did it for the imperialistic aspects of things.

somebody has a clue.....well stated....

(03-24-2016 12:48 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016...ce-agains/

Kinda like being the World's Tallest Midget....

(03-25-2016 02:57 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  What good is entering into a coalition of incompetents?

Yep. We need to hurry and make sure the Belgians participate with their efficient intelligence apparatus!!