Commander-in-Chief Forum

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimR-OCDS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JimR-OCDS

Guest
I’m surprised this hasn’t been discussed here.

Did anyone watch the Commander-in-Chief Forum last night ?

It was important in order to know the two candidates.

Hopefully, I’m not violating a rule by posting this, but it is world news.

You can watch it and get a transcript at the link.

nbcnews.com/storyline/commander-in-chief-forum

JIm
 
Jim,

Thanks for posting this. In my view, it is all theater. The millions of dollars from backers means deals have been suggested, alliances have been formed. The one with the best deal for the backers wins. There are more lobbyists in Washington than ever before. No matter who you are, either Football Team (Democrats or Republicans) can block anything you propose once you’re in office. But as Presidents come and go, members of both Parties stay for a long time and they know how to play the game, size up the new President and make sure that their backers are satisfied as well. They won’t always win but if they want to keep their backers happy, and not lose their position, they had better win most of the time.

I don’t mean to sound negative, but running the country is not rocket science, but if the two teams are blocking whatever they/their backers want, the peasants get what they want us to get. Which means the “we get the government we deserve/vote for” is a lie. The top 5% get to decide what we get. Just enough to keep us scraping by.

Popular vote - nothing else. No Electrical College (on purpose misspelling). No horse race. “Up 4 points, down 2 points.” That is not important. What each candidate stands for is.

Commander in Chief? For what? Who briefs him or her? Who decides what is in our best interests in terms of defense? Who has the most intel and assets? What have been the goals and outcomes of our last several wars? Anybody? Look up Project for a New American Century. Short-term, mid-term, and long-term goals and threats/potential threats. What are they? Is the public aware of what’s going on or in the planning stages? Sure, legitimate national security concerns and tipping our hand to any enemies or potential enemies would be wrong, but do we know the big picture? Do we even know how many countries where we have troops stationed or why they’re there?

Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Jim,

Thanks for posting this. In my view, it is all theater. The millions of dollars from backers means deals have been suggested, alliances have been formed. The one with the best deal for the backers wins. There are more lobbyists in Washington than ever before. No matter who you are, either Football Team (Democrats or Republicans) can block anything you propose once you’re in office. But as Presidents come and go, members of both Parties stay for a long time and they know how to play the game, size up the new President and make sure that their backers are satisfied as well. They won’t always win but if they want to keep their backers happy, and not lose their position, they had better win most of the time.

I don’t mean to sound negative, but running the country is not rocket science, but if the two teams are blocking whatever they/their backers want, the peasants get what they want us to get. Which means the “we get the government we deserve/vote for” is a lie. The top 5% get to decide what we get. Just enough to keep us scraping by.

Popular vote - nothing else. No Electrical College (on purpose misspelling). No horse race. “Up 4 points, down 2 points.” That is not important. What each candidate stands for is.

Commander in Chief? For what? Who briefs him or her? Who decides what is in our best interests in terms of defense? Who has the most intel and assets? What have been the goals and outcomes of our last several wars? Anybody? Look up Project for a New American Century. Short-term, mid-term, and long-term goals and threats/potential threats. What are they? Is the public aware of what’s going on or in the planning stages? Sure, legitimate national security concerns and tipping our hand to any enemies or potential enemies would be wrong, but do we know the big picture? Do we even know how many countries where we have troops stationed or why they’re there?

Ed
Click to expand...
So I take you didn’t watch it?

Jim
 
When I watched the forum, Matt Lauer did a good job of asking Hillary questions about her bad decisions, beginning with her vote for giving Bush authority to go to war in Iraq.

In all, she showed that she has played politics for so much of her life, she lacks substance and judgement.

All of her decisions are based on the winds of politics. She says she made a mistake voting for Bush’s war, but only did that when it lost its popularity as its started going bad.

If the war had gone well as Bush said, Hillary would’ve been reminding the public about her great decision in supporting the president.

Trump, actually seemed more presidential than I’ve ever seen him.

Bottom line for me is, Hillary is not competent to be Commander-in-Chief. Sorry if this upsets people.

Trump, we don’t know many things about him and what kind of president he’d be, but I’m more comfortable with what I don’t know about him than what I do know about Hillary.

Jim
 
That this country has morphed into a venalocracy since 1960 is an open secret, but nothing is gonna chsnge this cycle.

LORD have mercy.

ICXC NIKA
 
JimR-OCDS said:
When I watched the forum, Matt Lauer did a good job of asking Hillary questions about her bad decisions, beginning with her vote for giving Bush authority to go to war in Iraq.

In all, she showed that she has played politics for so much of her life, she lacks substance and judgement.

All of her decisions are based on the winds of politics. She says she made a mistake voting for Bush’s war, but only did that when it lost its popularity as its started going bad.

If the war had gone well as Bush said, Hillary would’ve been reminding the public about her great decision in supporting the president.

Trump, actually seemed more presidential than I’ve ever seen him.

Bottom line for me is, Hillary is not competent to be Commander-in-Chief. Sorry if this upsets people.

Trump, we don’t know many things about him and what kind of president he’d be, but I’m more comfortable with what I don’t know about him than what I do know about Hillary.

Jim
Click to expand...
👍
 
edwest2 said:
Jim,

Thanks for posting this. In my view, it is all theater. The millions of dollars from backers means deals have been suggested, alliances have been formed. The one with the best deal for the backers wins. There are more lobbyists in Washington than ever before. No matter who you are, either Football Team (Democrats or Republicans) can block anything you propose once you’re in office. But as Presidents come and go, members of both Parties stay for a long time and they know how to play the game, size up the new President and make sure that their backers are satisfied as well. They won’t always win but if they want to keep their backers happy, and not lose their position, they had better win most of the time.

I don’t mean to sound negative, but running the country is not rocket science, but if the two teams are blocking whatever they/their backers want, the peasants get what they want us to get. Which means the “we get the government we deserve/vote for” is a lie. The top 5% get to decide what we get. Just enough to keep us scraping by.

Popular vote - nothing else. No Electrical College (on purpose misspelling). No horse race. “Up 4 points, down 2 points.” That is not important. What each candidate stands for is.

Commander in Chief? For what? Who briefs him or her? Who decides what is in our best interests in terms of defense? Who has the most intel and assets? What have been the goals and outcomes of our last several wars? Anybody? Look up Project for a New American Century. Short-term, mid-term, and long-term goals and threats/potential threats. What are they? Is the public aware of what’s going on or in the planning stages? Sure, legitimate national security concerns and tipping our hand to any enemies or potential enemies would be wrong, but do we know the big picture? Do we even know how many countries where we have troops stationed or why they’re there?

Ed
Click to expand...
You are correct. 🙂

Saw about 90 seconds on Clinton. Didn’t see any on Trump. Watched some clips on both this morning for entertainment. It was boringly the same as the last many many many months. I don’t know how people can take it. It isn’t healthy.
 
GEddie said:
That this country has morphed into a venalocracy since 1960 is an open secret, but nothing is gonna chsnge this cycle.

LORD have mercy.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
Great word:thumbsup:Very succinct!
 
_thaddeus said:
You are correct. 🙂

Saw about 90 seconds on Clinton. Didn’t see any on Trump. Watched some clips on both this morning for entertainment. It was boringly the same as the last many many many months. I don’t know how people can take it. It isn’t healthy.
Click to expand...
By turning our head/TV channel.

Listening to either for eight years will be **painful. **I won’t commence doing so until I have to.

ICXC NIKA
 
JimR-OCDS said:
So I take you didn’t watch it?

Jim
Click to expand...
Hi Jim,

I did watch it. It had some specifics but it was typical campaign theater. “I can do better than he or she can.” I’ve seen a number of Presidents come and go. I’ve been there when decisions were made, when attacks have been announced.

Let me put it this way: You can’t serve 10 or 20 masters who are pulling the strings behind the scenes. If the two Football Teams would get down to the business of helping the peasants and not taking all these breaks, and tacking on “I’ll pass/vote for this bill if you tack on this.”

No. This is not a game, but they sure act like it. This is not about personal power and ego, this is about service. We still have a lot of people at or below the poverty line. Corporations are going to Mexico. The government isn’t making them. Why? To make money. There’s no EPA in Mexico. And more people living in poverty, in proportion to the US. They’ll take a lot less money and earn less and have less.

And if the top 8 per cent are fine with that (and trust me, they aren’t stupid), most people in the US won’t be.

Ed
 
Presidential? Trump was anything but presidential.

From his outright lies about his early stance on the war on Iraq (even in the face of written and audio proof to the contrary), to his admission that he doesn’t really have a secret plan to deal with ISIS, to his denigration of the military, to his fawning obsequiousness toward the murderer Putin, almost every statement he made showed that he has almost no grasp of the magnitude and complications of the situations that the POTUS faces and will face.

However, nothing made my blood run cold as much as his claim that the U.S. should have “taken” Iraq’s oil because “to the victor belongs the spoils.” Has the man never heard of the Hague Convention of 1907? (Hint: Probably not.) Not to mention that, according to President Bush, the purpose of the Iraq invasion was not to engage in a war but to “free the Iraqi people.”

The idea that this man, who tells lies even when the truth would serve him better, who spouts out whatever cockamamie idea pops into his head, who has virtually no understanding of the international situation, might be the leader of the free world terrifies me and keeps me awake at night.
 
Book_Worm said:
Presidential? Trump was anything but presidential.

From his outright lies about his early stance on the war on Iraq (even in the face of written and audio proof to the contrary), to his admission that he doesn’t really have a secret plan to deal with ISIS, to his denigration of the military, to his fawning obsequiousness toward the murderer Putin, almost every statement he made showed that he has almost no grasp of the magnitude and complications of the situations that the POTUS faces and will face.

However, nothing made my blood run cold as much as his claim that the U.S. should have “taken” Iraq’s oil because “to the victor belongs the spoils.” Has the man never heard of the Hague Convention of 1907? (Hint: Probably not.) Not to mention that, according to President Bush, the purpose of the Iraq invasion was not to engage in a war but to “free the Iraqi people.”

The idea that this man, who tells lies even when the truth would serve him better, who spouts out whatever cockamamie idea pops into his head, who has virtually no understanding of the international situation, might be the leader of the free world terrifies me and keeps me awake at night.
Click to expand...
Trump’s position on the war in Iraq is murky at best. Factcheck shows him sorta saying yes, he guesses we should go in. However, Factcheck then says that he quickly turned against the war.

Remember, He didn’t have the intelligence info as Hillary did.

He didn’t talk about taking Iraq Oil, but ISIS oil, which they took control of in Syria.

I’m not a fan of Trump, and haven’t planned on voting for him.

However, Hillary is far worse and her deception and dishonesty is without question. not to mention that she forces abortion onto institutions and nations.

Jim
 
Book_Worm said:
Presidential? Trump was anything but presidential.

From his outright lies about his early stance on the war on Iraq (even in the face of written and audio proof to the contrary), to his admission that he doesn’t really have a secret plan to deal with ISIS, to his denigration of the military, to his fawning obsequiousness toward the murderer Putin, almost every statement he made showed that he has almost no grasp of the magnitude and complications of the situations that the POTUS faces and will face.

However, nothing made my blood run cold as much as his claim that the U.S. should have “taken” Iraq’s oil because “to the victor belongs the spoils.” Has the man never heard of the Hague Convention of 1907? (Hint: Probably not.) Not to mention that, according to President Bush, the purpose of the Iraq invasion was not to engage in a war but to “free the Iraqi people.”

The idea that this man, who tells lies even when the truth would serve him better, who spouts out whatever cockamamie idea pops into his head, who has virtually no understanding of the international situation, might be the leader of the free world terrifies me and keeps me awake at night.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that was downright weird. I guess he thinks anything is allowed in warfare.
 
Book_Worm said:
Presidential? Trump was anything but presidential.

From his outright lies about his early stance on the war on Iraq (even in the face of written and audio proof to the contrary), to his admission that he doesn’t really have a secret plan to deal with ISIS, to his denigration of the military, to his fawning obsequiousness toward the murderer Putin, almost every statement he made showed that he has almost no grasp of the magnitude and complications of the situations that the POTUS faces and will face.

However, nothing made my blood run cold as much as his claim that the U.S. should have “taken” Iraq’s oil because “to the victor belongs the spoils.” Has the man never heard of the Hague Convention of 1907? (Hint: Probably not.) Not to mention that, according to President Bush, the purpose of the Iraq invasion was not to engage in a war but to “free the Iraqi people.”

The idea that this man, who tells lies even when the truth would serve him better, who spouts out whatever cockamamie idea pops into his head, who has virtually no understanding of the international situation, might be the leader of the free world terrifies me and keeps me awake at night.
Click to expand...
As a student of military history, that happened in Germany. Entire factories were dismantled and shipped to the US. Great Britain got some things. The Russians got some things. Thousands of patents were seized. It’s all documented.

Hague Convention? Who cares. They took everything they wanted, even if it was nailed down. The deck of an aircraft carrier was filled with captured German jets encased in a special plastic. Tons of engines. Our space program relied on capturing most of the entire German rocket team and around 100 V-2 rockets. We built copies of the German V-1 before the end of the war, and picked up literally tons of documents.

Ed
 
Book_Worm said:
Presidential? Trump was anything but presidential.

From his outright lies about his early stance on the war on Iraq (even in the face of written and audio proof to the contrary), to his admission that he doesn’t really have a secret plan to deal with ISIS, to his denigration of the military, to his fawning obsequiousness toward the murderer Putin, almost every statement he made showed that he has almost no grasp of the magnitude and complications of the situations that the POTUS faces and will face.

However, nothing made my blood run cold as much as his claim that the U.S. should have “taken” Iraq’s oil because “to the victor belongs the spoils.” Has the man never heard of the Hague Convention of 1907? (Hint: Probably not.) Not to mention that, according to President Bush, the purpose of the Iraq invasion was not to engage in a war but to “free the Iraqi people.”

The idea that this man, who tells lies even when the truth would serve him better, who spouts out whatever cockamamie idea pops into his head, who has virtually no understanding of the international situation, might be the leader of the free world terrifies me and keeps me awake at night.
Click to expand...
Does it matter what his position was on the Iraq war? He was only a businessman at the time.

Obviously, it matters what Hillary’s stance was.
 
lax16 said:
Does it matter what his position was on the Iraq war? He was only a businessman at the time.

Obviously, it matters what Hillary’s stance was.
Click to expand...
Yes, because hes made it a big deal. “I’ve always been against the Iraq war” has been what he’s been advertising about himself for a year…over, and over and over again. If its something that we shouldn’t be making a big deal out of , then he also shouldn’t be making a big deal out of it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top