Trump and Smith ticket?
- Thread starter STFXG
- Start date
Truly.
And my point was that she got the attention needed to be asked to be McCain's running mate because of her "maverick" actions in Alaskan government, something McCain is known for. These guys automatically label her an idiot because the national media saw her as a threat and did everything possible to squash her. But these guys don't know due to the media that it was her standing up to Alaska's Republicans that got her the governorship. Same thing happened to Romney. He was praised while working with Democrats as governor of Massachusetts, and had a stellar record of fixing problems and building businesses. But none of that mattered as the media focused on his wealth, doing everything possible to ruin his presidential bid. He may have been the most qualified candidate in history to fix the economy but all that mattered to liberals was the "R" after his name. Of course all of this means nothing to you as I'm just a courier, what could I possibly know? One of the main reasons this country is more and more polarized is we all have built in assumptions about others, and the media plays that to the hilt to push their own agenda.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
If you think the country is polarized now, wait until Trump gets his hands on the steering wheel.
Or Hillary!
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
She actually has a good history of working across the aisle in the senate. She is well respected by republican lawmakers, just vilified by the right wing media. There is only one candidate that has made overt racism his platform.
Hillary has made $21 million in two years making speeches to corporations and Wall Street. Some Wall Street speech transcripts are kept under wraps. Meanwhile $100 million has been given to her foundation, which only pays out 5% to charities, but also pays for her and Bill to fly luxury jets worldwide, stay in extremely expensive hotels and resorts, and eat gourmet food. Why do you think all this money is being given? Foreign gov't's and citizens aren't allowed to contribute to presidential campaigns but can contribute to her foundation. It's about access and favors after she's elected. And I've seen plenty of lawmakers say they aren't thrilled with Trump but will support him because Hillary would be a disaster. I don't know of one Republican openly saying he'll support her over Trump.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
It will be interesting to see if Bill would be asked to sever ties with the foundation if she is elected.
When she was named one of Time magazine's 100 most influential Americans Bob Gates who was defense secretary at the time and a Republican wrote a very glowing endorsement of Clinton talking about how she did more to bring the Defense Department and the State Department into lock step and a joint effort when it came to U.S. foreign policy . This came from a life long Republican who served both Democrat and Republican administrations.
He's a private citizen, doubt if he would have to. He'll be jetting off to Fantasy Island while she's running things.
And the military has been stripped down since and he's not as enamored any more. It was her and Obama who took us out of Iraq completely and we all know how that has turned out.
Are we to stay in Iraq a country that Bush using false and trumped up intelligence as an excuse to invade in first place and today place ourselves in what is now a civil war between ancient Muslim tribes that have been killing one another for the past 1000 years? Now the Republicans are trying to pass a bloated defense appropriations bill that contains money for weapons systems the Pentagon has plainly stated that it doesn't want or can't use . That's important because show me a weapons system that wasn't late in arriving and gone way over budget.
That's fine, but the military was recommending we leave a force large enough to avoid creating a power vacuum. Our complete withdrawal drew ISIS in from Syria, caused the destruction of the Christian Church and other religious minorities, the destruction of antiquities thousands of years old, the killing of tens of thousands of people, often in a horrific manner. I believe Bush should've stayed out of Iraq, but if you break it you buy it. And P.S. It was Clinton that got us involved in Libya which got Qaddafi killed and the country turned into a failed state.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Ok, I'm not disagreeing with a lot of that, just the part where you claimed Obama and Clinton are responsible for the removal of troops from Iraq. The funny part is, that's something liberals try to take credit for and I point the same thing out to them. Baby Bush is responsible for the withdrawal of troops, end of story.
Every major Democrat was saying Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. They were reading the same intelligence reports from every major intelligence service in the world. What I believe now is that Hussein was a SOB but that part of the world needs SOB's to keep it together. They are much worse off now. You can talk about Republican bills all day but you have a Democrat president who'll veto them. But you can't get around the fact that our military is at pre WWII levels, that many of our ships are mothballed. That's this president's doing.
He signed an agreement that didn't necessarily have to be adhered to and shouldn't have considering what has happened since.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
In the sense that we can go back on our word and make ourselves a country of liars, you are right, it didn't have to be adhered to. You like to point out that some military leaders didn't want the agreement, the real truth, however, is that even the Iraqis didn't want the agreement.... because they wanted us out sooner. We never should have been there, and once we were, we outstayed our welcome.
The whole region is a barren
hole with people fighting wars that have been going on for a thousand years. The idea that we can fix it is either arrogance or ignorance.... or maybe both.The key point here is that U.S. personnel in Iraq would be subject to prosecution under Islamic law which as we all know was in reality Muslim clerics . What would be their chances of getting a fair trial? No president could accept those terms. At the same time we were trying to claw our way out of a recession and the bills for treating the 40,000 U.S. wounded in 2 wars piling up. No one knows for certain which tribe will be the winner in the end but at this point in time the U.S. invasion of Iraq will go down as one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in our history.
Route 66
Slapped Upside-da-Head Member
you betcha!
Similar threads
