Honeymoon Period Over for Kamala Harris Polls Show Tight Race

[wayned]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

Better that than a 5 deferment draft dodger.

I want to clarify this.  When you graduated from high school and turned 18 you automatically qualified for the draft.   If you went on to college you could get a deferment from the draft for being a student, one year at a time depending on your grades.  When you graduated you automatically again became eligible.  I did this during my 4 years of school. I don't consider this as draft dodging.  But on graduation Trump went on and got a Phony medical excuse and continued to avoid the draft.  It was easy to do if you had connections or money.

[thaibeachlovers]

48 minutes ago, wayned said:

Actually he has two nick names the current one and most used is Mad dog, but he is also known as the warrior monk, google it if you don't believe me  I'm not saying that he was not a good Marine commander, what I am saying is that the Defense Secretary must be able to balance the issues and his attitude is the same as Trump's .  A couple of his famous quotes:

  

‘It’s quite fun to shoot them, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people.’

 

 ‘There are some people who think you have to hate them in order to shoot them. I don’t think you do.’

 

Is this really the type of person that we need as the Secretary of Defense?

Yes.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, wayned said:

I want to clarify this.  When you graduated from high school and turned 18 you automatically qualified for the draft.   If you went on to college you could get a deferment from the draft for being a student, one year at a time depending on your grades.  When you graduated you automatically again became eligible.  I did this during my 4 years of school. I don't consider this as draft dodging.  But on graduation Trump went on and got a Phony medical excuse and continued to avoid the draft.  It was easy to do if you had connections or money.

Had Trump actually gone to Vietnam ( as an officer, which he would have done ), the usual posters on here would be accusing him of being a war monger.

I doubt he cares much, if at all what the antis think of him.

[Jingthing]

On 1/28/2018 at 9:56 AM, pegman said:

You DO understand  that Mattis works for Trump, right?

Yes, and also that trump knows bupkis about policy details about anything and doesn't care to learn either. 

[wayned]

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Had Trump actually gone to Vietnam ( as an officer, which he would have done ), the usual posters on here would be accusing him of being a war monger.

If he had gone to Vietnam in a combat role and displayed the character traits that he displays today we wouldn't be having these discussions as he would have been one of the casualties of war!

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, wayned said:

If he had gone to Vietnam in a combat role and displayed the character traits that he displays today we wouldn't be having these discussions as he would have been one of the casualties of war!

Why would he have done that if he had the choice, as he would have?

There were thousands of "safe" jobs in Vietnam,

 

From

 The Other End of the Spear: The Toothto-Tail Ratio (T3R) in Modern Military Operations
John J. McGrath
 

giving Vietnam a total of 113,030 Army combat personnel in April 1968. This number was 35 percent of the 324,030 Army troops deployed in the country at that time. Such a proportion produced a functional tooth-to-tail ratio of slightly less than one combat soldier to every two support troops

 

He could even have served his time in Thailand or elsewhere.

 

[Morch]

On 1/28/2018 at 11:44 AM, boomerangutang said:

                         I agree partly.  No doubt the US spends insanely too much for military.  If a reasonable person like you or I was in charge of spending, we could save 50%.   But I don't think that money needs to be spent on protecting Americans at home.  Americans are rather safe, except for their fellow Americans who can own as many semi- and automatic weapons as their black hearts desire.  Among the biggest dangers to Americans are gun-loving Americans, and Pharma drugs.   That doesn't need tens of billions of $$'s to fix.  It needs a sea-change in how Americans think.  

 

If a reasonable person like you or I was in charge of spending, we could save 50%.   

 

Not that "reasonable" is the first word I'd associate with you, based on your posts, but seriously - do you have any experience managing budgets, personnel, and making military and geopolitical decisions on anything nearing that level? Yeah, though so....

 

I think most posters fancying themselves as qualified to run the World, or at least superpower, would be as overwhelmed as Trump seems to be, if not as indecent and offensive as him.

 

 

Edited January 29, 2018 by Morch

[simoh1490]

On 28/01/2018 at 10:31 AM, IAMHERE said:

Doesn't seem America is getting much bang for its' bucks compared to what others get for so very little money. I personally am tired of paying for the defense of the 'free' world. Time to bring everybody back to the homeland and spend the money to protect America at home.

Fortress America mentality, keep on like that and pretty soon you'll be isolated, perhaps you don't care

[Morch]

4 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Trump is changing the paradigm.  Trump mistakenly thinks that everyone in government works for him.  More specifically, everyone he has appointed to gov't positions should be beholden to him and shield him.  It's mafia don mentality.  Perhaps you've seen the sessions where Trump has some of his appointees around him, and they go 'around the horn' - each one trying to out-do the other - in their gushing praise for their faultlessly supreme leader.  The same boot-lickers will be applauding his every utterance at Tuesday's 'State of the Union' speech.

 

Karma is going to run over their dogma.

 

With regard to the military, Trump is actually less a control freak (for better or worse) then Obama was.

 

3 hours ago, mike324 said:

President has say whether to pull troops back or not. Trump is ramping up military overseas, that explains the increase budget.

 

I believe Trump was for pulling out US troops (at least on some fronts, Afghanistan for one), without much regard for the implications and consequences. He was brought around by his advisors.

 

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, wayned said:

Actually he has two nick names the current one and most used is Mad dog, but he is also known as the warrior monk, google it if you don't believe me  I'm not saying that he was not a good Marine commander, what I am saying is that the Defense Secretary must be able to balance the issues and his attitude is the same as Trump's .  A couple of his famous quotes:

  

‘It’s quite fun to shoot them, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people.’

 

 ‘There are some people who think you have to hate them in order to shoot them. I don’t think you do.’

 

Is this really the type of person that we need as the Secretary of Defense?

 

If he had the same attitude as Trump, the US would already be at war, on at least two fronts. Most reports suggest that Mattis is one of the "responsible adults" in Trump's administration, and as the "Warrior Monk" moniker indicates he's quite well versed in his field and related topics. If you'd bother digging a wee bit deeper, you would have found accounts of him highlighting the importance of learning and understanding various cultures, both those of allies and foes.

[boomerangutang]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

With regard to the military, Trump is actually less a control freak (for better or worse) then Obama was.

I believe Trump was for pulling out US troops (at least on some fronts, Afghanistan for one), without much regard for the implications and consequences. He was brought around by his advisors.

Trump may or may not be more of a control-freak re; the military, than Obama.  But Trump never misses a chance to shout for much more funding for an already bloated military budget.  Trump is a simpleton, so he just shouts "more money! more money!" ....thinking that will get him more military votes. 

 

All his life, everything he's bought, he has used other peoples' money (loans or daddy's money, or investors' money, or government hand-outs, or....).  He takes that same irresponsible attitude to the WH.  He has no qualms about spending taxpayer money like it was limitless.  He's never really earned money, so he has little concept (and no responsibility) about it.

 

 

[wayned]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

f he had the same attitude as Trump, the US would already be at war, on at least two fronts. Most reports suggest that Mattis is one of the "responsible adults" in Trump's administration, and as the "Warrior Monk" moniker indicates he's quite well versed in his field and related topics. If you'd bother digging a wee bit deeper, you would have found accounts of him highlighting the importance of learning and understanding various cultures, both those of allies and foes.

If that's true please explain the quote he made when addressing a gathering of servicemen on20 November 2016.

‘It’s quite fun to shoot them, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people.’

It certainly doesn't sound like something a "responsible adult" would say.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

With regard to the military, Trump is actually less a control freak (for better or worse) then Obama was.

 

 

I believe Trump was for pulling out US troops (at least on some fronts, Afghanistan for one), without much regard for the implications and consequences. He was brought around by his advisors.

 

 

Obama didn't even like the military, except for the bits that made him look good like AF1.

It's never been a good idea for presidents to be able to tell the military how to do the job. LBJ was apparently a control freak that tried to run Vietnam war out of the White House, and that didn't end well for him, or the US.

The British way is better. QE is "head of the military", but is only a figurehead with no actual power.

Edited January 29, 2018 by thaibeachlovers

[boomerangutang]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

If he had the same attitude as Trump, the US would already be at war, on at least two fronts. Most reports suggest that Mattis is one of the "responsible adults" in Trump's administration, and as the "Warrior Monk" moniker indicates he's quite well versed in his field and related topics. If you'd bother digging a wee bit deeper, you would have found accounts of him highlighting the importance of learning and understanding various cultures, both those of allies and foes.

Being labelled as 'one of the responsible adults' in Trump's inner circle is not much to brag about.  Twenty hogs trotting to wallow in a mud pit.  Nineteen get there - the twentieth is tardy.  That last one the cleanest of the bunch, at least for a minute or two.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, boomerangutang said:

Trump may or may not be more of a control-freak re; the military, than Obama.  But Trump never misses a chance to shout for much more funding for an already bloated military budget.  Trump is a simpleton, so he just shouts "more money! more money!" ....thinking that will get him more military votes. 

 

All his life, everything he's bought, he has used other peoples' money (loans or daddy's money, or investors' money, or government hand-outs, or....).  He takes that same irresponsible attitude to the WH.  He has no qualms about spending taxpayer money like it was limitless.  He's never really earned money, so he has little concept (and no responsibility) about it.

 

 

 

Thanks for sharing, however, the post (your post!) I replied to was a different rant - one about Trump's supposed working relations and authority style with people on his administrations.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, wayned said:

If that's true please explain the quote he made when addressing a gathering of servicemen on20 November 2016.

‘It’s quite fun to shoot them, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people.’

It certainly doesn't sound like something a "responsible adult" would say.

 

It is possible to be a great military commander and still like killing the enemy.

I prefer a military commander that likes killing the enemy to some PC wonk that thinks his job is to hand out supplies after a natural disaster, or send his troops out to wring their hands at the nasty people shooting other people, like a certain military did during the Bosnian conflict.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, wayned said:

If that's true please explain the quote he made when addressing a gathering of servicemen on20 November 2016.

‘It’s quite fun to shoot them, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people.’

It certainly doesn't sound like something a "responsible adult" would say.

 

 

What exactly is it that you need "explained"? Cherry-picking comments is all very well, and a fine tradition on this forum, but doubt that you could build an entire profile of a person based on such premises. Could have quoted the full thing, rather than a one-liner, could have presented it vs. other sayings. Once more - if Mattis was anything like Trump, the US would be at war, on more than one front.

[klikster]

On 1/28/2018 at 11:38 AM, boomerangutang said:

Does that budget include $20+ billion to air-condition some military tents in the Middle east?  That's $40,000 / minute,  24/7.   We wouldn't want those guys to get warm and start sweating, would we?

Source?

 

While air-con in tents may (or may not be) unreasonable ... especially considering the outrageous salary those guys make ...

 

How much did you sweat while you were on active duty?

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Being labelled as 'one of the responsible adults' in Trump's inner circle is not much to brag about.  Twenty hogs trotting to wallow in a mud pit.  Nineteen get there - the twentieth is tardy.  That last one the cleanest of the bunch, at least for a minute or two.

 

Yet another pointless purist rant.

[wayned]

34 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Why would he have done that if he had the choice, as he would have?

There were thousands of "safe" jobs in Vietnam,

You're mixing apples and oranges. If he had enlisted, yes , he would have had some choices as to which service, type of job and maybe OCS. Also he would have had to sign up for 4 years. He might have never made it to Nam.  If he had been drafted he would not have had a choice but only a 2 year commitment which usually meant basic training,  combat/infantry training  and off to your 13 month tour of duty in Nam, but the discussion was about the draft, not voluntary enlistment.  How many months did you spend there?

[klikster]

24 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Twenty hogs trotting to wallow in a mud pit.  Nineteen get there - the twentieth is tardy.  That last one the cleanest of the bunch, at least for a minute or two.

Do you mean like some of those who share their down-home experiences here on TV?

[thaibeachlovers]

14 minutes ago, wayned said:

You're mixing apples and oranges. If he had enlisted, yes , he would have had some choices as to which service, type of job and maybe OCS. Also he would have had to sign up for 4 years. He might have never made it to Nam.  If he had been drafted he would not have had a choice but only a 2 year commitment which usually meant basic training,  combat/infantry training  and off to your 13 month tour of duty in Nam, but the discussion was about the draft, not voluntary enlistment.  How many months did you spend there?

LOL, he excelled at military college. He would never have been just another grunt.

 

Anyway, he didn't go, and trying to say how he would have behaved in combat is a nonsense, as no one knows.

 

The thread isn't about me, so you can leave me out of it.

Edited January 29, 2018 by thaibeachlovers

[wayned]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL, he excelled at military college. He would never have been just another grunt.

Only if he had enlisted and signed up for 4 years!  If he had been drafted with a 2 year commitment it would have been the roll of the dice, military college or not.  Been there, done that and fully understood all of the options!!

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, wayned said:

Only if he had enlisted and signed up for 4 years!  If he had been drafted with a 2 year commitment it would have been the roll of the dice, military college or not.  Been there, done that and fully understood all of the options!!

LOL. He isn't stupid. If he couldn't get out of the draft he'd probably have gone to West Point ( which he would have got into ), and ended up knowing the right people to build military structures, getting even more wealthy than he is.

However, if he had done that the usual posters would have been beating him up for not being in combat.

Doesn't matter what he did, he's going to be attacked, which is why I, for one, just laugh at the increasingly more desperate attacks.

If he'd won the Medal of Honor 5 times over, he'd be attacked for being a "Rambo".

Edited January 29, 2018 by thaibeachlovers

[wayned]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. He isn't stupid. If he couldn't get out of the draft he'd probably have gone to West Point ( which he would have got into ), and ended up knowing the right people to build military structures, getting even more wealthy than he is.

Right! He would never have survived the "Code of Conduct' in any military academy!!  Try again!

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, wayned said:

Right! He would never have survived the "Code of Conduct' in any military academy!!  Try again!

I see you are just using the forum to promote your dislike of Trump, and apparently have no interest in a rational discussion.

Bye.

[boomerangutang]

4 hours ago, klikster said:

Source? While air-con in tents may (or may not be) unreasonable ... especially considering the outrageous salary those guys make ... How much did you sweat while you were on active duty?

I don't think you want to bring me in to the conversation. I can handle heat better than most military guys. I'm slim. Most soldiers are overweight and are pansies when it comes to heat.

What do salaries have to do with with paying $40,000 per minute for air-conditioning?  The soldiers don't pay for it.

[boomerangutang]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

Yet another pointless purist rant.

If you've run out of ideas, you don't need to feel compelled to post.

[klikster]

4 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

I don't think you want to bring me in to the conversation. I can handle heat better than most military guys. I'm slim. Most soldiers are overweight and are pansies when it comes to heat.

What do salaries have to do with with paying $40,000 per minute for air-conditioning?  The soldiers don't pay for it.

You brought yourself into the conversation and are now trying to deflect.

 

Most soldiers are pansies?!? LOL! Is that your observation from when you served? Please tell us about your service.

 

The soldiers don't pay for it.

 

Soldiers don't pay taxes?

[klikster]

9 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

If you've run out of ideas, you don't need to feel compelled to post.

Are you a moderator now?