What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official 2016 GOP thread: Is it really going to be Donald Trump?? (2 Viewers)

His comments about Obama land home though, because whatever you think about Obama and the job that he has done as president, it is hard to argue with how bad this administration has been in messaging/PR.  It goes from the little things, like not showing up at certain funerals where one would expect any sitting president, to big things like toeing the line between repairing the global image of the US post-Bush and appearing to be overly pandering to foreign powers. 

Obama's seeming arrogance regarding not needing to pay attention to how he sells himself and his decisions has created an environment where he has abdicated the narrative to others.  And here we are.

 
Skoo said:
So Trump is an isolationist that goes on and on about how we need to strengthen the most powerful military the world has ever seen.

As usual, makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...
We like to say we are the most powerful military in the world....You have to be willing to go the whole nine yards...What difference does it make if you aren't willing to take it to the end...I have no doubt our men and women are committed, but they can't get the job done when our government makes them fight with one hand tied behind their back...Do think the government Russia or China would care about collateral damage...You better hope we never have to tangle with them...

 
Ditka Butkus said:
We like to say we are the most powerful military in the world....You have to be willing to go the whole nine yards...What difference does it make if you aren't willing to take it to the end...I have no doubt our men and women are committed, but they can't get the job done when our government makes them fight with one hand tied behind their back...Do think the government Russia or China would care about collateral damage...You better hope we never have to tangle with them...
Click to expand...
When has our military been unable to do it's job due to the government tying one hand behind their back?

 
Ditka Butkus said:
We like to say we are the most powerful military in the world....You have to be willing to go the whole nine yards...What difference does it make if you aren't willing to take it to the end...I have no doubt our men and women are committed, but they can't get the job done when our government makes them fight with one hand tied behind their back...Do think the government Russia or China would care about Collateral Damage...You better hope we never have to tangle with them...
Click to expand...
We're obviously not handicapping our military from a monetary standpoint so what exactly are you referring to? Is it that Obama doesn't want to go war with everyone? Does that count as fighting with one hand tied behind one's back?

 
elbowrm said:
His comments about Obama land home though, because whatever you think about Obama and the job that he has done as president, it is hard to argue with how bad this administration has been in messaging/PR.  It goes from the little things, like not showing up at certain funerals where one would expect any sitting president, to big things like toeing the line between repairing the global image of the US post-Bush and appearing to be overly pandering to foreign powers. 

Obama's seeming arrogance regarding not needing to pay attention to how he sells himself and his decisions has created an environment where he has abdicated the narrative to others.  And here we are.
Click to expand...
:lmao:

 
Give me a break.

We spend more on defense than the next like 20 countries COMBINED. 

And all but like 2 of those countries are our allies.

The money we spend on defense is absurd, and completely unnecessary.

It's laughable when candidates talk about our military being "decimated". Are you kidding me? We have NEVER decreased defense spending in the slightest.

 
Ditka Butkus said:
Every war since World War II
Click to expand...
Unpack this.  Given your political bent, it's probably safe to assume you are criticizing Obama specifically here. Are you suggesting that we'd be in a better place in Syria, Iraq, and the Middle East in general if we just went in and started blowing stuff up indiscriminately?

We haven't faced a real, necessary war with the survival of this country at stake since WWII.  We've been fighting against "communism," "terror," etc.  Not against nations.  Most of what we have done has been in the nature of regime change and nation-building. Indiscriminate slaughtering of civilians wouldn't seem to be a good way to accomplish our goals, given the missions at hand.

It's also completely barbaric to bemoan the fact that we haven't killed enough civilians, but that's a whole separate issue.

 
elbowrm said:
His comments about Obama land home though, because whatever you think about Obama and the job that he has done as president, it is hard to argue with how bad this administration has been in messaging/PR.  It goes from the little things, like not showing up at certain funerals where one would expect any sitting president, to big things like toeing the line between repairing the global image of the US post-Bush and appearing to be overly pandering to foreign powers. 

Obama's seeming arrogance regarding not needing to pay attention to how he sells himself and his decisions has created an environment where he has abdicated the narrative to others.  And here we are.
Click to expand...
If these are your biggest problems with Obama, then he's done a heck of a job.

(You know, since none of those are even problems to begin with, just BS that right-wing radio repeated non-stop)

HE DIDN'T GO TO NANCY'S FUNERAL! THE HORROR!!! (nevermind that President's don't generally attend funerals of former first ladies)

 
Skoo said:
Give me a break.

We spend more on defense than the next like 20 countries COMBINED. 

And all but like 2 of those countries are our allies.

The money we spend on defense is absurd, and completely unnecessary.

It's laughable when candidates talk about our military being "decimated". Are you kidding me? We have NEVER decreased defense spending in the slightest.
Click to expand...
You're talking to Trump fans.  Facts need not apply.  You're better off just saying something like "Our military is the best. The best.  I promise you.  It's great -- we have the greatest military ever." 

 
Skoo said:
Give me a break.

We spend more on defense than the next like 20 countries COMBINED. 

And all but like 2 of those countries are our allies.

The money we spend on defense is absurd, and completely unnecessary.

It's laughable when candidates talk about our military being "decimated". Are you kidding me? We have NEVER decreased defense spending in the slightest.
Click to expand...
Is that because we provide troops to 20 countries? 

 
Coeur de Lion said:
Unpack this.  Given your political bent, it's probably safe to assume you are criticizing Obama specifically here. Are you suggesting that we'd be in a better place in Syria, Iraq, and the Middle East in general if we just went in and started blowing stuff up indiscriminately?

We haven't faced a real, necessary war with the survival of this country at stake since WWII.  We've been fighting against "communism," "terror," etc.  Not against nations.  Most of what we have done has been in the nature of regime change and nation-building. Indiscriminate slaughtering of civilians wouldn't seem to be a good way to accomplish our goals, given the missions at hand.

It's also completely barbaric to bemoan the fact that we haven't killed enough civilians, but that's a whole separate issue.
Click to expand...
And that is exactly what Trump wants to stop....We shouldn't be using our Military unless there is a direct threat to us. Convince our men and women who are being fired upon that we are not at war...Example...1983 Beirut..We lose 240 Marines and Ronald Regan pulls out..The surviving Marines wanted retribution, but no they were told to turn and walk away... Viet Nam walked away...Afghanistan walked away, Iraq walked away.. You commit your Military it should be to win by any means necessary....You don't turn them into targets and have them fight by rules of engagement.

 
Ditka Butkus said:
And that is exactly what Trump wants to stop....We shouldn't be using our Military unless there is a direct threat to us. Convince our men and women who are being fired upon that we are not at war...Example...1983 Beirut..We lose 240 Marines and Ronald Regan pulls out..The surviving Marines wanted retribution, but no they were told to turn and walk away... Viet Nam walked away...Afghanistan walked away, Iraq walked away.. You commit your Military it should be to win by any means necessary....You don't turn them into targets and have them fight by rules of engagement.
Click to expand...
Is your issue with the walking away or with being there in the first place?  If it's the latter, I'd broadly agree with you.  Walking away was absolutely the right call in all of those examples, but we never should have been involved to the extent that we were in any case.

 
Ditka Butkus said:
And that is exactly what Trump wants to stop....We shouldn't be using our Military unless there is a direct threat to us. Convince our men and women who are being fired upon that we are not at war...Example...1983 Beirut..We lose 240 Marines and Ronald Regan pulls out..The surviving Marines wanted retribution, but no they were told to turn and walk away... Viet Nam walked away...Afghanistan walked away, Iraq walked away.. You commit your Military it should be to win by any means necessary....You don't turn them into targets and have them fight by rules of engagement.
Click to expand...
When Trump talks about killing the wives and children of terrorists, would they be considered a "direct threat" to us?

As for the 2nd bolded part, I'm not even sure where to start.

You're saying that even if we realize that going in was a mistake (Iraq, Vietnam), we should stay and continue to fight a losing war just because?

 
Coeur de Lion said:
Is your issue with the walking away or with being there in the first place?  If it's the latter, I'd broadly agree with you.  Walking away was absolutely the right call in all of those examples, but we never should have been involved to the extent that we were in any case.
Click to expand...
If you go, you have to go the distance...What do you tell the families that gave the ultimate sacrifice....Sorry your boy got killed, but man we were really close to achieving our goal...Oh well maybe next time...

 
Skoo said:
When Trump talks about killing the wives and children of terrorists, would they be considered a "direct threat" to us?

As for the 2nd bolded part, I'm not even sure where to start.

You're saying that even if we realize that going in was a mistake (Iraq, Vietnam), we should stay and continue to fight a losing war just because?
Click to expand...
I don't know but Obama has killed over a couple thousand civilians and over 900 children with drone strikes so I trust Obama that the killing of women and children must be necessary. 

 
Ditka Butkus said:
We like to say we are the most powerful military in the world....You have to be willing to go the whole nine yards...What difference does it make if you aren't willing to take it to the end...I have no doubt our men and women are committed, but they can't get the job done when our government makes them fight with one hand tied behind their back...Do think the government Russia or China would care about collateral damage...You better hope we never have to tangle with them...
Click to expand...
That is what makes us better, we are supposed to care about our troops and their families, not just be happy that we can kill everything in our path. Let's be honest too, China doesn't care about collateral damage while making shoes, they won't care about soldiers that die in battle. 

 
Skoo said:
When Trump talks about killing the wives and children of terrorists, would they be considered a "direct threat" to us?

As for the 2nd bolded part, I'm not even sure where to start.

You're saying that even if we realize that going in was a mistake (Iraq, Vietnam), we should stay and continue to fight a losing war just because?
Click to expand...
1. Good chance if you are a wife or older child of a terrorist, that you are a threat for the same behavior.

2. You don't commit you military to lose..." Hey guys grab your weapon, we are going to go out and lose the hell out of this war"...

 
Ditka Butkus said:
If you go, you have to go the distance...What do you tell the families that gave the ultimate sacrifice....Sorry your boy got killed, but man we were really close to achieving our goal...Oh well maybe next time...
Click to expand...
Your views would be more valid if the world were a black and white place.  It's not.

 
Ditka Butkus said:
When it comes to committing our military to fight...It should be black or white.
Click to expand...
No, it shouldn't.  We can't completely disengage from the hot spots in the world, but neither can we wage all-out war against non-nations.  It sucks sometimes, but that's the current reality.  The problems in the Middle East can't be solved through the use of brute force.

 
Coeur de Lion said:
No, it shouldn't.  We can't completely disengage from the hot spots in the world, but neither can we wage all-out war against non-nations.  It sucks sometimes, but that's the current reality.  The problems in the Middle East can't be solved through the use of brute force.
Click to expand...
In all due respect I completely disagree...If our military is suppose to be a police force than I want them to patrol the hotspots of our own nation...

 
Ditka Butkus said:
Was I okay?..I don't matter..I didn't fight any of those wars...Maybe you should ask the men and women who fought and watched their brothers die...
Click to expand...
The only opinions on foreign policy that should matter are those that are currently wearing a uniform?  Where does your guy Trump fiy in to this story then?

 
bananafish said:
Ok, I get it now. You've got about as good a grasp on foreign affairs as your buddy Donald so you just deflect instead of answering the question. Good to know.
Click to expand...
When it comes to the Middle East.....unless we were prepared to go to extremes we shouldn't have ever been there....The liberals of our nation do not have the stomach for what needs to be done.....End of story...

 
Getting pretty much exactly what I deserve for trying to have a ratonal discussion with Trump supporters. "We LOVE the poorly educated" indeed.  I'll be back to laugh at you guys in November.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditka Butkus said:
When it comes to the Middle East.....unless we were prepared to go to extremes we shouldn't have ever been there....The liberals of our nation do not have the stomach for what needs to be done.....End of story...
Click to expand...
Not having a stomach for = believing in international law?

 
Americans yearn for simple solutions in foreign affairs and there aren't any. 

We never should have gone into Iraq but once there we probably left too early. 

We were right to support the revolutionary movements in Egypt and Libya. We were right not to send troops in. Not sure about Syria. 

There is no one size fits all. Every situation is different. But this much should be clear to any thinking person: 

1. We cannot turn our back on world affairs. We are committed to defending the members of NATO, Taiwan, South Korea, and parts of the Middle East. Upholding these commitments is vital not only to our national interest, to the interests of liberty, and to our national honor. 

2. We cannot break the rules and deliberately target civilians, or torture people. It doesn't matter what our enemies do. We are better than they are. 

Donald Trump's viewpoints on these two issues disqualify him for the Presidency IMO, regardless of his views on anything else. 

 
sho nuff said:
Ditka Butkus said:
When it comes to the Middle East.....unless we were prepared to go to extremes we shouldn't have ever been there....The liberals of our nation do not have the stomach for what needs to be done.....End of story...
Click to expand...
Not having a stomach for = believing in international law?
Click to expand...
Our government has a propensity for not doing the needful after they make a decision.  They go in half assed a good portion of the time and it ends poorly not just with military actions mind you.  That's because while, in the moment, people get on board and are all rah rah to get the "bad guy" but in reality they have no idea how ugly war really is and when they see it they recoil and wish they had never seen it.  I said it when we decided to go into Iraq.  We will need to have a permanent, strong presence or it's a waste of time and money.  We will never be able to leave the area in my lifetime if we want democracy to grow over there.  And I say it every time we go into another area of the ME.  The area will never stabilize itself.  There are way too many factions who want to rule the area.

I don't know if this is what DB was referring to when he made his comment, but it's the first thing that came to mind when I read it.

 
The Commish said:
Our government has a propensity for not doing the needful after they make a decision.  They go in half assed a good portion of the time and it ends poorly not just with military actions mind you.  That's because while, in the moment, people get on board and are all rah rah to get the "bad guy" but in reality they have no idea how ugly war really is and when they see it they recoil and wish they had never seen it.  I said it when we decided to go into Iraq.  We will need to have a permanent, strong presence or it's a waste of time and money.  We will never be able to leave the area in my lifetime if we want democracy to grow over there.  And I say it every time we go into another area of the ME.  The area will never stabilize itself.  There are way too many factions who want to rule the area.

I don't know if this is what DB was referring to when he made his comment, but it's the first thing that came to mind when I read it.
Click to expand...
Agree for the most part, but IMO Iraq (and any major incursion into the ME) is going to be a waste of time, lives, and money, period.  That's not a culture that wants or is ready for democracy.  Given their way, they'll vote a theocracy into place.  There is no way to impose Western-style secular democracy on a culture that doesn't approach things from the Greco-Roman cultural worldview.  It just won't work.

 
Coeur de Lion said:
The Commish said:
Our government has a propensity for not doing the needful after they make a decision.  They go in half assed a good portion of the time and it ends poorly not just with military actions mind you.  That's because while, in the moment, people get on board and are all rah rah to get the "bad guy" but in reality they have no idea how ugly war really is and when they see it they recoil and wish they had never seen it.  I said it when we decided to go into Iraq.  We will need to have a permanent, strong presence or it's a waste of time and money.  We will never be able to leave the area in my lifetime if we want democracy to grow over there.  And I say it every time we go into another area of the ME.  The area will never stabilize itself.  There are way too many factions who want to rule the area.

I don't know if this is what DB was referring to when he made his comment, but it's the first thing that came to mind when I read it.
Click to expand...
Agree for the most part, but IMO Iraq (and any major incursion into the ME) is going to be a waste of time, lives, and money, period.  That's not a culture that wants or is ready for democracy.  Given their way, they'll vote a theocracy into place.  There is no way to impose Western-style secular democracy on a culture that doesn't approach things from the Greco-Roman cultural worldview.  It just won't work
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree, which is why I don't have a problem with the opinion that we need to keep our noses out of the region.  Given what we know, it's the only logical thing to do.  Everything else is very illogical and very expensive and won't work yet we choose that path over and over expecting a different result.

 
Coeur de Lion said:
Getting pretty much exactly what I deserve for trying to have a ratonal discussion with Trump supporters. "We LOVE the poorly educated" indeed.  I'll be back to laugh at you guys in November.
Click to expand...
Why is it when people/ conservatives disagree with a liberals point of view they are poorly educated....Typical...Why don't you share with us your enlightenment when it comes to foreign affairs and when we should commit our troops to war.....I've tried to answer you questions and apparently you don't like my answers..

 
Coeur de Lion said:
Yeah, he's not going to come out and say it, but his boy Trump has talked about using nukes and deliberately targeting families, so I'm guessing that's what he's hinting around.
Click to expand...
Yep...I'd use a nuke and convince Russia to use one as well...You want to stop the nonsense in the Middle East...that ought to do it,,,,...What are we worried about..that the sand may turn too sand...what have the people in that region contributed to the world other than oil and heartache......Has anything else worked...Maybe one of you can convince them how nice we are and that if they only took the chance and time to get to know us they would really like us....Most powerful military in the world sitting on our thumbs taking it from a bunch of rock throwers..

 
bananafish said:
Yeah, killing thousands/millions of innocent people is sure to stop the nonsense in the Middle East, if by that you mean fanning the flames of Jihad a thousand/million times higher and turning the rest of the world against us, not to mention the killing of innocents part.

It's so stupid and short-sighted it could have come from Trump himself.
Click to expand...
what is your solution?????Smart guy....Japanese hated us 70 years ago...Haven't had a problem with them since...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

lombardi
The Next POTUS - Here are the odds, who is the best bet?
2 3 4
Replies
156
Views
6K
Good Posting Judge
Good Posting Judge
cstu
How Donald Trump Exploited the Media's Greed to Win the Nomination
Replies
17
Views
1K
The General
The General
Chadstroma
Meet the atheist who quizzes presidential candidates about their faith
Replies
32
Views
2K
Joe Summer
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top