cstu
Footballguy
There were already boots on the ground when JFK was elected, however LBJ turned it into a real war.Korea - Truman
Vietnam - JFK, LBJ
There were already boots on the ground when JFK was elected, however LBJ turned it into a real war.Korea - Truman
Vietnam - JFK, LBJ
There were already boots on the ground when JFK was elected, however LBJ turned it into a real war.
Yeah, it would take an historically bad Republican Presidential candidate, an obstructionist Congress with an approval rating of 12%, and a massive change in public perception of outgroups embraced by the Dems like racial minorities and homosexuals in for the Dems to make significant enough gains to start the path of ever really equalizing the House again.The democrats will never get the House again. That is the GOP firewall. Without the House, Hillary can't do a thing domestically.
We've been waiting for the light bulb to go off for you for years. Let us know when it happens.At what point do you look in the mirror and say geez, I've been wrong over and over and over again. Perhaps I should let off the gas and re-evaluate what I'm discussing.
Shouldn't ask others to do things you aren't willing to do yourself. I really wish we still had sigs....been some doozies lately. Is there a competition going on at :e: or something?At what point do you look in the mirror and say geez, I've been wrong over and over and over again. Perhaps I should let off the gas and re-evaluate what I'm discussing.
Eight years is a long time. With her general views on foreign policy, I'd be pretty shocked if we don't have fresh boots on the ground somewhere before she leaves office.At what point do you look in the mirror and say geez, I've been wrong over and over and over again. Perhaps I should let off the gas and re-evaluate what I'm discussing.
Technically they were 'military advisors'. My argument is Democrats back then had to worry about being soft on communism and they had far less technology to achieve their military goals without boots on the ground than we do today. For example, if they had drones back then I don't think we lose all of those soldiers in the Korean and Vietnam wars.Vietnam troop levels by year:
- 1960 - 760
- 1961 - 900
- 1962 - 11,300
- 1963 - 16,300
I don't absolve Ike but JFK's name is on this.
Even with all of those factors in play it's impossible due to gerrymandering.Yeah, it would take an historically bad Republican Presidential candidate, an obstructionist Congress with an approval rating of 12%, and a massive change in public perception of outgroups embraced by the Dems like racial minorities and homosexuals in for the Dems to make significant enough gains to start the path of ever really equalizing the House again.
Well the 1962 JFK escalation to 11,600 troops took it out of the military advisory capacity, that was war. That happened under him.Technically they were 'military advisors'. My argument is Democrats back then had to worry about being soft on communism and they had far less technology to achieve their military goals without boots on the ground than we do today. For example, if they had drones back then I don't think we lose all of those soldiers in the Korean and Vietnam wars.
Dems could legitimately pick up 15-20 seats this election.Even with all of those factors in play it's impossible due to gerrymandering.
You haven't been reading well.The crowd in here have moved from "she'll never win the nomination!" to "she'll never be elected!" to "she's going to be a horrible President!"
I suppose that's progress.
Don't forget, Tim, that they still keep telling us that no one likes her.The crowd in here have moved from "she'll never win the nomination!" to "she'll never be elected!" to "she's going to be a horrible President!"
I suppose that's progress.
DNC was completely against Obama and he won. Of course he was a much better candidate than Bernie.The fix was in from the start..,DNC completely in the tank against Bernie
pimaries were a sham
It's more likely his definition of "crowd", but I'm not ruling your theory out either.You haven't been reading well.The crowd in here have moved from "she'll never win the nomination!" to "she'll never be elected!" to "she's going to be a horrible President!"
I suppose that's progress.
Your polls are telling you that. Of course these numbers can go nowhere but up at this point. When Trump is the comparison bar, there is really no other direction, but you'll be able toDon't forget, Tim, that they still keep telling us that no one likes her.![]()
about her numbers improving, so there's that.Take a look at Trump's numbers. She's certainly no where near the floor.Your polls are telling you that. Of course these numbers can go nowhere but up at this point. When Trump is the comparison bar, there is really no other direction, but you'll be able toabout her numbers improving, so there's that.
And that's without Trump going even further off the rails or being repudiated at the convention.Dems could legitimately pick up 15-20 seats this election.
Well, I guess technically, you're right. They COULD go down, but damn...against Trump? That'd be a bitter pill for the Hillary lovers to swallow. Even I am not that down on the woman.Take a look at Trump's numbers. She's certainly no where near the floor.Your polls are telling you that. Of course these numbers can go nowhere but up at this point. When Trump is the comparison bar, there is really no other direction, but you'll be able toabout her numbers improving, so there's that.
They were sent there as military advisors and Kennedy ordered 1,000 to be withdrawn in 1963, but granted it did escalate the war.Well the 1962 JFK escalation to 11,600 troops took it out of the military advisory capacity, that was war. That happened under him.
For sake of comparison we have 5000+ soldiers in Iraq right now and somewhere around that 500-900 special forces troops in Syria right now. Hillary will be inheriting on the ground fighting in Afghanistan and Syria (yes), 5K+ warfare support soldiers in Iraq, and air war campaigns in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and (occasionally) Somalia.
As for technology, we were very well advanced over the Koreans and Vietnamese too, but you can't take and hold land with anything but ground troops, that has been the case since 10,000 BC.
Kennedy got us into VietnamLast Democratic President who got us into an avoidable conflict and put boots on the ground? Truman?
She was expected to win 2014-15, she's expected to win now.Don't forget, Tim, that they still keep telling us that no one likes her.![]()
The numbers increased 11,000 in 1962 and 5,000 in 1963, and they piled in another 7K in 1964 which was likely planned in 1963, that isn't withdrawing 1,000 at all.They were sent there as military advisors and Kennedy ordered 1,000 to be withdrawn in 1963, but granted it did escalate the war.
All you wrote about our troops levels is true, but what would change to require much higher troops levels in those countries?
ISIS is being defeated with our air support and local forces on the ground, so what we're doing is working. In fact, Iraqi forces just took back Falluja.
I've been pretty consistent that she's going to win and she's a terrible person unworthy of the office.The crowd in here have moved from "she'll never win the nomination!" to "she'll never be elected!" to "she's going to be a horrible President!"
I suppose that's progress.
She was at 58% likability in 2014. She was in the 60s for most of her time as Secretary.She was expected to win 2014-15, she's expected to win now.
She wasn't well liked 2014-15, she is less liked now.
Only things that could have changed this were Biden jumping in the race, Sanders undercutting her character in the fall debates, and Sanders winning NV & SC.
HTH.
I was thinking favorability, if there's a difference, sorry for the mistake. Hillary is currently -19 Fav/Unfav.She was at 58% likability in 2014. She was in the 60s for most of her time as Secretary.
Ah yes....one of your typical broad generalizations from Tim's World.The crowd in here have moved from "she'll never win the nomination!" to "she'll never be elected!" to "she's going to be a horrible President!"
I suppose that's progress.
It was favorability. I just wrote the wrong thing. 58% favorable in 2014. Her low watermark seems to have been 38% way back when Bill was first running in the Democratic primaries and she's been as high as 66%.I was thinking favorability, if there's a difference, sorry for the mistake. Hillary is currently -19 Fav/Unfav.
I was going to follow up and agree with you.It was favorability. I just wrote the wrong thing. 58% favorable in 2014. Her low watermark seems to have been 38% way back when Bill was first running in the Democratic primaries and she's been as high as 66%.
Interesting that to Democrats Hillary is more favorable than Bernie (67% to 60%).I was thinking favorability, if there's a difference, sorry for the mistake. Hillary is currently -19 Fav/Unfav.
Wow, you're right, I would not have guessed that.Interesting that to Democrats Hillary is more favorable than Bernie (67% to 60%).
As per usual, disingenuous and not even remotely accurate. But, I suspect this makes you feel better if you're scoring at home and want to feel better about your pissing all over this board.The crowd in here have moved from "she'll never win the nomination!" to "she'll never be elected!" to "she's going to be a horrible President!"
I suppose that's progress.
Bernie's an outsider...why would this shock any of us? You can see by this thread and the Bernie thread, it wasn't much appreciated by the establishment types that he pulled her left. Even though Bernie was the closest thing the Dems had to their declared platform.Wow, you're right, I would not have guessed that.Interesting that to Democrats Hillary is more favorable than Bernie (67% to 60%).
He manages a debate like its a Choose Your Own Adventure children's book where he just makes #### up as he goes. To the extent that the only reason to respond to Tim at this point is to provide a little board hygiene and call him out on his bull####; it's most certainly not to engage in any meaningful discussion. He is equipped with neither the capacity nor willingness to look beyond his own imagination when putting forth an argument or opinion.You haven't been reading well.
Normally, maybe. But at this point Trump is hoping to raise maybe 400 million. The estimates for her campaign are 1.5-2 billion. That plus his really low numbers give her an opportunity that most campaigns can't afford.It's a dumb strategy. Hope it won't matter.
Our side: She seems like she's lying became, it's clear she's lying, then she's been caught red handed lying and finally she just can't stop lying - even about lying.The crowd in here have moved from "she'll never win the nomination!" to "she'll never be elected!" to "she's going to be a horrible President!"
I suppose that's progress.
Your ability to mischaracterize groups of people with broad brush paint strokes which is not even remotely close is unsurpassed. When people do it against minority groups it is called bigotry. People here don't like it any better.The crowd in here have moved from "she'll never win the nomination!" to "she'll never be elected!" to "she's going to be a horrible President!"
I suppose that's progress.
30% think the economy is fairly good to very good. 90% say the economy is staying the same or getting worse.
This was explained in the article at the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-democratic-party_us_57645313e4b015db1bc95fd3Not sure why she would even want to "rebuild" the Democratic party. It just gave her the nomination.What's she going to do - promise to root out corruption?
I'm sorry. Saints tells me I don't read very well, I can live with that. Other posters say my comments were too general, I can live with that. Cobalt says I am incapable of having a rational discussion (at the same time that he spends time here responding to people who are certain that Hillary is guilty of a string of murders) I can live with that!Your ability to mischaracterize groups of people with broad brush paint strokes which is not even remotely close is unsurpassed. When people do it against minority groups it is called bigotry. People here don't like it any better.
I am sorry, but I generally wait until a game is over before paying on the wager. When Hillary is the nominee, then you get paid. Not wih 5 minutes to go in the 4th.I'm sorry. Saints tells me I don't read very well, I can live with that. Other posters say my comments were too general, I can live with that. Cobalt says I am incapable of having a rational discussion (at the same time that he spends time here responding to people who are certain that Hillary is guilty of a string of murders) I can live with that!
But jon mx, who incidentally keeps finding excuses not to pay his debts, accuses me of treating those I disagree with in here in the same way that bigots treat minorities??? I don't know. That's tough to take.![]()
Except that wasn't the wager. The wager was that Obama wouldn't endorse anyone before the race was decided. The race was decided and Obama endorsed Hillary. At that point the bet is won. If Hillary died in a car crash tomorrow, you would still have lost this bet already.I am sorry, but I generally wait until a game is over before paying on the wager. When Hillary is the nominee, then you get paid. Not wih 5 minutes to go in the 4th.
Keystone Cop betting (TM)Commish you're far from a stupid guy. Why do you want to upend the status quo in this country so much? That seems to be the central theme in all of your political posts. Why is the status quo so bad? Hasnt it served us well since at least World War II?Keystone Cop betting (TM)