2016 Presidential Horse Race

[NDBoiler]

Melania and Barron Trump won't move to White House: report | TheHill

On a different note, apparently Melania and her kid will be staying in New York. Wonder how much that will cost the taxpayer.

Relatively speaking, probably not much difference. They would still be under Secret Service protection whether the kid is going to school in New York or D.C. i can think of quite a few other things that I'd rather not have my tax dollars spent on besides this.

 

[kmoose]

Good point on number one. I misread that.


I flat out disagree with number 2. ISIS certainly is a threat and can motivate lone wolf attackers and maybe even orchestrate something larger, but they simply cannot reshape the world inside the US unless we let fear do it for them.

They're dangerous for sure- but in no way do they pose an existential threat to us.

They reshaped the Manhattan skyline in a few hours....


Just because your party is weak on terrorism, doesn't mean that the rest of us have to buy the line that there's no real threat.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Relatively speaking, probably not much difference. They would still be under Secret Service protection whether the kid is going to school in New York or D.C. i can think of quite a few other things that I'd rather not have my tax dollars spent on besides this.

I guess if Trump is planning on using Trump Tower as a getaway anyway this is probably right. But the costs of him keeping his set up in NYC are massive:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...-presidential-getaway/?utm_term=.ec180a96e50c

I feel like this link is relevant:

Obamas' Date Night in New York City Draws Criticism | Fox News

 

[IrishinSyria]

They reshaped the Manhattan skyline in a few hours....


Just because your party is weak on terrorism, doesn't mean that the rest of us have to buy the line that there's no real threat.

The threat of terrorism is real.

One party takes the threat seriously and nominated someone with extensive foreign policy experience. The other party elected a reality TV star... a candidate who top GOP national security officials said “would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”

 

[phillyirish]

Oh my. From a pure strategy stand point Japan's big mistake at Pearl Harbor was the fact that they chose not to invade the Hawaiian Islands immediately after their initial bombimg campaign. Something they could have easily done. If Adolf wouldn't have kicked the bear, Germany could have easily bombed England into non existence all the while being the first country to develop nukes and the rocket technology to deliver them over long distances. I'd take a relative handful of crazies over that all day, everyday.

I'm not sure how accurate this is. The USN still had the 3 aircraft carriers that luckily were delayed from the Pearl Harbor raid. Even if somehow an occupation of Hawaii occurred (it couldn't have, at least not any time near Dec 7), it would have bee extremely isolated deep enemy territory. The western US naval bases were still intact (Guam, Wake island. America Somoa, Phllipines) in addition the US would have still maintained a strong mid-pacific base at Midway. Logistically, and even tactically with the threat of the those vital carriers it would have been unfeasible.

I know totally off topic, however I just wanted to point out that historical fallacy.

 

[Shamrock Theories]

They reshaped the Manhattan skyline in a few hours....


Just because your party is weak on terrorism, doesn't mean that the rest of us have to buy the line that there's no real threat.

Good thing Trump "knows more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me"

God damnit lol

 

[IrishinSyria]

I'm not sure how accurate this is. The USN still had the 3 aircraft carriers that luckily were delayed from the Pearl Harbor raid. Even if somehow an occupation of Hawaii occurred (it couldn't have, at least not any time near Dec 7), it would have bee extremely isolated deep enemy territory. The western US naval bases were still intact (Guam, Wake island. America Somoa, Phllipines) in addition the US would have still maintained a strong mid-pacific base at Midway. Logistically, and even tactically with the threat of the those vital carriers it would have been unfeasible.

I know totally off topic, however I just wanted to point out that historical fallacy.

Yeah even if the carriers had been there (or had we not basically lucked out at Midway) I think we still would have won the war but it might have taken several more years.

I don't know what would have happened had Hitler not invaded the Soviets though. I think there was probably enough animosity between him and Stalin that they would have fought sooner or later, but if they didn't they certainly could have dominated Europe and African and eventually would have had jet fighters and nuclear weapons to attack us with.

 

[kmoose]

One party takes the threat seriously and nominated someone with extensive foreign policy experience. The other party elected a reality TV star... a candidate who top GOP national security officials said “would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”

I really don't care about Trump. I didn't vote for him, and I think he may fail miserably. But that's not what I was debating. I was debating your flippant attitude about the severity of the threat that ISIS poses to the US. I don't think there's any question that an argument can be made that ISIS poses MORE of a threat to the US, than Japan, Germany, and Italy, in the 40s..........

 

[Bluto]

I'm not sure how accurate this is. The USN still had the 3 aircraft carriers that luckily were delayed from the Pearl Harbor raid. Even if somehow an occupation of Hawaii occurred (it couldn't have, at least not any time near Dec 7), it would have bee extremely isolated deep enemy territory. The western US naval bases were still intact (Guam, Wake island. America Somoa, Phllipines) in addition the US would have still maintained a strong mid-pacific base at Midway. Logistically, and even tactically with the threat of the those vital carriers it would have been unfeasible.

I know totally off topic, however I just wanted to point out that historical fallacy.

I disagree, the Japanese waltzed to victory in the Philippines when they invaded there. So yeah the Japanese had they chosen to could have walked all over the limited fortifications in Hawaii at the time of Pearl Harbor. And to your point every single one of those US naval bases would have been cut off had they done so. It would have also allowed the Japanese to use Pearl Harbor and the facilities there as a staging ground to hunt down and destroy what remained of the US fleet.

 

[NDFAN420]

Oh my. From a pure strategy stand point Japan's big mistake at Pearl Harbor was the fact that they chose not to invade the Hawaiian Islands immediately after their initial bombimg campaign. Something they could have easily done. If Adolf wouldn't have kicked the bear, Germany could have easily bombed England into non existence all the while being the first country to develop nukes and the rocket technology to deliver them over long distances. I'd take a relative handful of crazies over that all day, everyday.

Where did you get any of that from? Ridiculous "What if?" websites?

Easily invade Hawaii from where? The Pacific is pretty big. How was Germany going to do anything without Romania and Baku or N. Africa?

 

[Bluto]

Where did you get any of that from? Ridiculous "What if?" websites?

Easily invade Hawaii from where? The Pacific is pretty big. How was Germany going to do anything without Romania and Baku or N. Africa?

No just recalling info from the numerous history classes I took in college. The premise I responded to was that Isis presents a bigger threat than Japan and Germany did in 1940. The hypotheticals were presented to demonstrate that if the leadership in both Japan and Germany had not made bad strategic decisions, WW2 could have ended much differently and therefore in 1940 they were a much bigger threat than Isis is and ever will be. So there you have it. As to the other rantings maybe start a thread on WW2 and we could debate it there. Toodles.

 

[IrishinSyria]

I disagree, the Japanese waltzed to victory in the Philippines when they invaded there. So yeah the Japanese had they chosen to could have walked all over the limited fortifications in Hawaii at the time of Pearl Harbor. And to your point every single one of those US naval bases would have been cut off had they done so. It would have also allowed the Japanese to use Pearl Harbor and the facilities there as a staging ground to hunt down and destroy what remained of the US fleet.

IDK man if I recall correctly the Japanese fleet was operating at the very outer boundaries of its range when Pearl Harbor was attacked- staging a landing there would have required them to seize a toe hold somewhere else to refuel, and that would have put the US on alert.

We would have beaten the Japanese eventually no matter what they did. They just didn't have the manpower or resources to defeat us. You could argue that some decisions they made hastened that result.

I still think that the threats aren't close to comparable, but I guess I see the argument if your criteria is damage done on US soil.

 

[Bluto]

IDK man if I recall correctly the Japanese fleet was operating at the very outer boundaries of its range when Pearl Harbor was attacked- staging a landing there would have required them to seize a toe hold somewhere else to refuel, and that would have put the US on alert.

We would have beaten the Japanese eventually no matter what they did. They just didn't have the manpower or resources to defeat us. You could argue that some decisions they made hastened that result.

I still think that the threats aren't close to comparable, but I guess I see the argument if your criteria is damage done on US soil.

Yeah, I agree on the long term outcome. Anyhow, Japan did a half ass job bombing Pearl Harbor. They left the dry docks and fuel depots untouched. Had they destroyed those? Who knows. As for Germany the dumbest thing they did was invade Russia. Second dumbest declaring war on the US when they did. Back to the original point, had the Axis been a bit more patient, strategic and coordinated in their efforts the war could have easily swung the other way and the world today would be completely different. I don't think Isis in and of its self is capable of fundamentally altering the geopolitics of the entire globe. As you posted earlier I agree completely that the how the US chooses to respond does.

 

[connor_in]

It’s a cult: Obama is ‘our Jesus Christ’ – twitchy.com

 

[johnnycando]

It’s a cult: Obama is ‘our Jesus Christ’ – twitchy.com

This is touchy shit.

They just went to the "no-zone."

This world is more than ready and craving the Antichrist.

When will he reveal himself?

Many will be deceived.

 

[Shamrock Theories]

I really don't care about Trump. I didn't vote for him, and I think he may fail miserably. But that's not what I was debating. I was debating your flippant attitude about the severity of the threat that ISIS poses to the US. I don't think there's any question that an argument can be made that ISIS poses MORE of a threat to the US, than Japan, Germany, and Italy, in the 40s..........

Utterly ridiculous

 

[NorthDakota]

Utterly ridiculous

Why?

 

[GowerND11]

Why?

They aren't a true cohesive unit. How are they a legit threat to the US as a whole? They can perform acts of terror, they can maybe cause some damage in a singular battle or so, but that's it. ISIS lacks the technology, manpower, infrastructure, mobility, communications, training, and weapons to actually pose an actual threat as a force to bring down the US.

 

[NorthDakota]

They aren't a true cohesive unit. How are they a legit threat to the US as a whole? They can perform acts of terror, they can maybe cause some damage in a singular battle or so, but that's it. ISIS lacks the technology, manpower, infrastructure, mobility, communications, training, and weapons to actually pose an actual threat as a force to bring down the US.

My point has been missed and missed badly by some on here. The point was that the Empire of Japan was not going to be able to walk in to the United States. Germany wasn't either. I wouldn't expect ISIS or any Terror group to do that sort of thing either. You people are thinking in terms of Command and Conquer.

 

[GowerND11]

My point has been missed and missed badly by some on here. The point was that the Empire of Japan was not going to be able to walk in to the United States. Germany wasn't either. I wouldn't expect ISIS or any Terror group to do that sort of thing either. You people are thinking in terms of Command and Conquer.

I don't think anyone here is saying either Japan or Germany were going to waltz right in and topple the US. What is being said is they had a greater chance to defeat us than ISIS, even if that chance was slim to none. A lot of this is what ifs because we all know how WWII played out. However, since hindsight is 20/20, we can speculate what might have been had Germany focused solely on the UK before turning its attention to the USSR, and if the Japanese had been more effective at Pearl Harbor, or waiting, or did a full scale attack.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Anyway it's a moo point because apparently no registries (for now?) but they're not ruling anything out.

I'm pro-watch list, pro-drone program, and pro-NSA surveillance too, so I'm hardly a radical lefty on any of this stuff. Basically I'm a fan of the 2nd term Bush/Obama doctrine, which is to relentlessly pursue terrorists while making it crystal clear that we are not at war with Islam.

 

[IrishBroker]

It’s a cult: Obama is ‘our Jesus Christ’ – twitchy.com

but the right wing are the fanatics

 

[IrishJayhawk]

but the right wing are the fanatics

Google "Obama antichrist" and you'll find some stuff.

 

[connor_in]

Anyway it's a moo point because apparently no registries (for now?) but they're not ruling anything out.

I'm pro-watch list, pro-drone program, and pro-NSA surveillance too, so I'm hardly a radical lefty on any of this stuff. Basically I'm a fan of the 2nd term Bush/Obama doctrine, which is to relentlessly pursue terrorists while making it crystal clear that we are not at war with Islam.

Just playing big guy...I make my share of spelling mistakes......UNLESS IT WASN'T A MISTAKE AND ITS SOME BOVINE CONSPIRACY THEORY YOU ARE REFERENCING!!!!

 

[IrishBroker]

Google "Obama antichrist" and you'll find some stuff.

Oh, for sure. But the fanatic label has been bestowed on the right wing (mainly the Christian right) almost exclusively. Especially by the media.

 

[Bluto]

Google "Obama antichrist" and you'll find some stuff.

Listen to Conservative AM radio while driving I-5 or the 99 in the Central Valley here in California. You'll definitely hear some stuff.

 

[connor_in]

Google "Obama antichrist" and you'll find some stuff.

yeah, but its the same for Bush and Trump too, so :shruggie: ...and HRC, even by the FBI apparently

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Oh, for sure. But the fanatic label has been bestowed on the right wing (mainly the Christian right) almost exclusively. Especially by the media.

There is obviously a lunatic left. But I don't think it's been as mainstreamed in the party. See Bannon, Steve

We'll obviously just disagree on this one.

 

[Bluto]

Oh, for sure. But the fanatic label has been bestowed on the right wing (mainly the Christian right) almost exclusively. Especially by the media.

Not necessarily true. The anti vaccination folks on the left have (appropriately in my opinion) been labeled nut jobs.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Not necessarily true. The anti vaccination folks on the left have (appropriately in my opinion) been labeled nut jobs.

Yes. They are as crazy as the people who deny climate change.