Shades of Ron Paul where the military, particularly active duty military, were amongst the first on board with the campaign.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/288546...uty-troops

That is a bit strange considering Trump has basically said he would have an isolationist approach to foreign policy.

Well, Hillary has demonstrated she'll hang them out to dry.

(07-23-2016 11:59 AM)Smaug Wrote:  Well, Hillary has demonstrated she'll hang them out to dry.

No great shock Hillary is dead last in all branches. And particularly hated among the Marines and Air Force.

(07-23-2016 11:59 AM)Smaug Wrote:  Well, Hillary has demonstrated she'll hang them out to dry.

Do you honestly still believe that after knowing the facts?

(07-23-2016 12:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 11:59 AM)Smaug Wrote:  Well, Hillary has demonstrated she'll hang them out to dry.

Do you honestly still believe that after knowing the facts?

Do you honestly not?

(07-23-2016 12:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 11:59 AM)Smaug Wrote:  Well, Hillary has demonstrated she'll hang them out to dry.

Do you honestly still believe that after knowing the facts?

Ab-so-lute-ly. Beyond any doubt.

It's an informative watch:






There are a lot of things to like.

Quote:The unscientific poll was conducted by Doctrine Man via Google Forms . . .

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/21/poll-t...z4FHIsSXXV

all I had to read . . . the poll is crap. I mean, honestly, did someone actually believe this stupid sh*t? it's inconceivable.

(07-23-2016 06:44 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

Quote:The unscientific poll was conducted by Doctrine Man via Google Forms . . .

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/21/poll-t...z4FHIsSXXV

all I had to read . . . the poll is crap. I mean, honestly, did someone actually believe this stupid sh*t? it's inconceivable.

"Doctrine Man via Google Forms" sounds intentionally a lot more discrediting than "a writer for the Military Times who setup the Google Form for use to conduct the poll of readership of the Military Times."

(07-23-2016 11:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  That is a bit strange considering Trump has basically said he would have an isolationist approach to foreign policy.

Even if he got elected, no one would let Trump demobilize the military.

(07-23-2016 11:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  That is a bit strange considering Trump has basically said he would have an isolationist approach to foreign policy.

No, he has said he would have a non-interventionist approach. Switzerland is non-interventionist. North Korea is isolationist. Do you see the difference?

And it's not strange at all. Remember, when we send troops into all these no-win "limited" wars, it's the military that does the dying and getting wounded. And for no good reason. Most military people I served with, and most others that I know, are strongly opposed to fighting wars that we don't intend to win.

Johnson does well with the military for the same reasons.

Texted my son about this last night and he had to laugh. His response: "Under Obama I ride to war in a 44 year old Vietnam era M113. After Johnson if I still had a job after his massive budget cuts I guess they would break out the WWII era M3 Halftack for us to go to war in"

Seems all my military buds on FB want GJ.

(07-23-2016 12:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 11:59 AM)Smaug Wrote:  Well, Hillary has demonstrated she'll hang them out to dry.

Do you honestly still believe that after knowing the facts?

Apparently THEY think she will.

(07-23-2016 06:44 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

Quote:The unscientific poll was conducted by Doctrine Man via Google Forms . . .

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/21/poll-t...z4FHIsSXXV

all I had to read . . . the poll is crap. I mean, honestly, did someone actually believe this stupid sh*t? it's inconceivable.

If that is all you had to read, then either you don't understand what it means or you think they are claiming something they aren't.

Let me say it differently... If you could actually poll everyone in the country, then you wouldn't need to use SCIENCE to estimate what the actual numbers would be... because you would have them. This poll doesn't purport to represent all Americans or even all of the military... merely those who decided to reply. If you think that the Military Times readership differs from the makeup of the military in general, that would be applying 'science' to those numbers to extrapolate them into some larger guess.... HOWEVER, those guesses are only as good as the 'science' (supposedly educated guesses) they apply.