The Next President is...

[drewpey]

3 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

My God is not in the White House.  

But neither is Hillary.

Both of those facts are important to me.

 

Nor is there an emperor.  Just a strange guy who isn't part of the entrenched on both side political machinery.  One who beat 16 other  GOP candidates who were various iterations of the same ol' same ol', and defeated Hillary.  

Who was given a run for her suspiciously gained money by someone who wasn't even a real Democrat.

And neither side listened to the massive numbers of people who don't like DC and its circle-jerk shenanigans.

Sooooo...no then?

[brickhistory]

If Trump did something illegal and is tried/impeached/convicted, out he goes.

Hillary did, by her own admission, performed actions regarding classified that would send you or I to Leavenworth.  With or without intent, the statute regarding is pretty clear.  Yet she's still slowly cavorting about.

One rule of law or not?

 

Edited to add:

Oh, and the feeling of seeing the election go the other way after the entire political industry - politicians, media, and loud liberals just knew it was a lock for Hillary, is one I cherish.

Enough people from enough of the country gave a giant collective middle finger to that same industry.

Glorious.

Edited June 15, 2018 by brickhistory

[dream big]

The Donald may be on the verge of one of the biggest peace breakthroughs in recent history and people are getting wrapped around the axel regarding Trump (returning) a salute to a NK General.  We really are in trouble. People focus more on optics than the actual issue. (For the record I thought it was stupid regarding people getting spun up about Obama bowing.)  Plenty of material to criticize any President on, this is not one of them.

[tk1313]

15 minutes ago, dream big said:

The Donald may be on the verge of one of the biggest peace breakthroughs in recent history and people are getting wrapped around the axel regarding Trump (returning) a salute to a NK General.  We really are in trouble. People focus more on optics than the actual issue. (For the record I thought it was stupid regarding people getting spun up about Obama bowing.)  Plenty of material to criticize any President on, this is not one of them.

Yeah but did you see that raccoon climb the building?

[drewpey]

1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

If Trump did something illegal and is tried/impeached/convicted, out he goes.

Hillary did, by her own admission, performed actions regarding classified that would send you or I to Leavenworth.  With or without intent, the statute regarding is pretty clear.  Yet she's still slowly cavorting about.

One rule of law or not?

 

Edited to add:

Oh, and the feeling of seeing the election go the other way after the entire political industry - politicians, media, and loud liberals just knew it was a lock for Hillary, is one I cherish.

Enough people from enough of the country gave a giant collective middle finger to that same industry.

Glorious.

Have you read the new IG report? It largely supports Comeys actions. Do you give it the same weight as the IG report that investigated McCabe?

[drewpey]

1 hour ago, dream big said:

The Donald may be on the verge of one of the biggest peace breakthroughs in recent history and people are getting wrapped around the axel regarding Trump (returning) a salute to a NK General.  We really are in trouble. People focus more on optics than the actual issue. (For the record I thought it was stupid regarding people getting spun up about Obama bowing.)  Plenty of material to criticize any President on, this is not one of them.

I keep hearing how great this deal Trump made with lil Kim in Singapore was, and how bad of a deal the JCPOA was. Can someone on the right break it down for me how they compare with specifics?

I'm all for peace and hope it works out, but I see the denucleariation talk similar to Obama saying we should work towards a world without nukes...it's largely aspirational and not going to happen.  I'll be happy to eat crow on this one, but we've seen this movie before.

[Lawman]

41 minutes ago, drewpey said:

I keep hearing how great this deal Trump made with lil Kim in Singapore was, and how bad of a deal the JCPOA was. Can someone on the right break it down for me how they compare with specifics?

I'm all for peace and hope it works out, but I see the denucleariation talk similar to Obama saying we should work towards a world without nukes...it's largely aspirational and not going to happen.  I'll be happy to eat crow on this one, but we've seen this movie before.

Gee things different about the two.

 

The fact that the Iran deal was not negotiable because they refused while this is still an active negotiation...

The fact it lapses after 10 years...

The fact we were allowing them multiple loopholes to continue enrichment and centrifuge research at military sites we weren’t allowed to inspect by our own agreement... as well as refine their ballistic missile capability.


Look the Iran deal sucked. This deal could very well suck. Difference is the Iran deal was “done” as far as every party outside of us was concerned and was no longer negotiable so we go back to sanctions in the hopes of forcing them back to the table for the same reason they originally showed up. This.... is still the opening stage of a long term discussion and actions. Trump hasn’t agreed or brought some treaty for anything that is final. Let them run this out because the sanctions, the huge military apparatus, and the willingness to turn the hurt back on didn’t go away yesterday with a handshake and some sound bites on CNN. Same as Reagan and Gorbachev didn’t suddenly turn off MAD/Afghanistan/SDI/NATO after the first press junket.

 

 

Some people just want to excercise in a self exhaustive effort of sport bitching. 

[waveshaper]

6 hours ago, Lawman said:

Let them run this out because the sanctions, the huge military apparatus, and the willingness to turn the hurt back on didn’t go away yesterday with a handshake and some sound bites on CNN. Same as Reagan and Gorbachev didn’t suddenly turn off MAD/Afghanistan/SDI/NATO after the first press junket. 

 

 

Some people just want to excercise in a self exhaustive effort of sport bitching. 

Yep. These type deals can take a loooong time to reach any logical state of fruition. Here's a look back/few highlights from the last time we conducted nuclear weapons negotiations with an adversary that actually had "Real Live Nukes" with Short, Intermediate, Strategic range/reach.

- Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty; US/USSR negotiations started in Nov 1981 and the INF Treaty went into effect in June 1988 (it took 7 years, 5 months to cut this deal). Key note; The INF Treaty was approved/ratified by the US Senate.

- Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START); US/USSR negotiations started in June 1982 and the START Treaty went into effect in Dec 1994 (it took 12 years, 6 months to cut this deal). Key note; The START Treaty was approved/ratified by the US Senate.

Here's my take on the current status of the US/Nork Nuke negotiations. We have taken the first baby step by CNX/suspending Joint US/ROK exercises and have 6,969 more steps to go; 

- We have seen these type of actions taken by the US and our allies before. I'm cautiously optimistic but wouldn't be surprised if we get screwed "again" in the long run. Hopefully this move (CNXing Exercises) will be considered a signal of good faith to the Norks and it's also reminiscent of something right out of the President Reagan/HW Bush playbook.

- We did something similar to this back in the late 1980's/early 1990's in Europe/NATO. These US/NATO actions were in direct response to the US/USSR Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF-Treaty) which went into effect in 1988, ongoing comprehensive START Treaty negotiations, and finally the collapse of the USSR in late Dec 1991. Also the end of the Cold War ushered in the era of the "Peace Dividend" which resulted in drastic cuts to US/NATO military spending. Note; the Peace Dividend era pretty much sucked for us military folks.
- Basically we started scaling back our troop levels/equipment/armament, cancelling or scaling back our exercises, etc, etc. Here's one of maaaany Examples; The massive "Reforger Exercise" was cancelled in 1989 and by the early 1990's it was officially terminated (many other NATO exercise were also terminated or scaled way back). The downside today (last 5 to 10 years) = Russia is acting up again and we're starting to ramp some of this stuff back up again.

 

[di1630]

 All those that panned Obama for bowing. We're cool with this, right?

Providing a military salute in response to someone who gave it first?

Seems ok to me and I hate those Commie bastards.

Listen, I’m sure you are convinced Hillary would have gone in there on a menopausal rage and a week later Bill could have a NK comfort girl after his trip to the Pyongyang McDonalds but that’s not how this stuff works.

The left once again imploding. Sad.

[TreeA10]

I was in Incheon over the weekend and doing the walk around before flying home to DFW.  Some Korean ground guy comes up, bows, and salutes.  I reflexively returned it, he smiled and walked away.  Should I have been rude and ignored him?

[Lawman]

I was in Incheon over the weekend and doing the walk around before flying home to DFW.  Some Korean ground guy comes up, bows, and salutes.  I reflexively returned it, he smiled and walked away.  Should I have been rude and ignored him?

The really weird ones are when you get salutes from what would be a superior officer of a foreign military.

Like bro, please... your a LtCol in your nations military and I’m just a CW3 in mine. It’s cool here you go please stop doing that.

[Vertigo]

22 hours ago, FlyArmy said:

The president isn't beholden to shit. He can do whatever he wants. As the CiCs, it is their prerogative to make the choice whether or not to return salutes. But since Reagan, presidents have returned salutes from those who salute them, out of respect, since not returning a salute is typically thought of as a sign of disrespect.

A bow is a sign of submission and not a military custom or courtesy. Big difference. Furthermore, obama initiated a bow, he didn't do it as a response to being bowed to. He initiated a bow to a king who then just shook his hand. 

Do you seriously not see the difference here, or are you trying to push an agenda?

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/thesaurus-category/american/gestures-of-respect

[Vertigo]

3 hours ago, di1630 said:

Providing a military salute in response to someone who gave it first?

Seems ok to me and I hate those Commie bastards.

Listen, I’m sure you are convinced Hillary would have gone in there on a menopausal rage and a week later Bill could have a NK comfort girl after his trip to the Pyongyang McDonalds but that’s not how this stuff works.

The left once again imploding. Sad.


 

I am in no way shape or form a Hillary fan.

I just like pointing out hypocrites and watching them defend their hypocrisy.

[HeloDude]

14 hours ago, drewpey said:

Maybe military folks with dependents should be required to sacrifice more for the increased costs of dependents on TRICARE? Additional deployments, longer ADSCs, more Friday night morale lines. Then we could allow TRICARE to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions. Sorry about that heart murmur kid...tell your parents to stop being poor and pay cash!

Tricare isn't the greatest, but ultimately it keeps people generally alive and helps them be a productive member of society. It's in the US's best interest to do so. Same goes for the general populace...if we can afford it. The debate used to be about whether it was possible to do given the costs...now it has devolved into "they don't deserve it". It's sad to see people's lives be destroyed because they lost the health lottery, and even sadder to see such a large amount of people have no empathy for those who are caught in the tail spin. I agree we can't give everyone everything for free, but people shouldn't be going bankrupt for health issues outside their control. More healthy people means more production, more tax revenue.

So how much of your personal wealth are you voluntarily donating to charities that help provide healthcare/pay for healthcare expenses of those less foryunate than you?  And which specific charities do you use?

[Vertigo]

35 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

So how much of your personal wealth are you voluntarily donating to charities that help provide healthcare/pay for healthcare expenses of those less foryunate than you?  And which specific charities do you use?

Doctors Care out of Littleton, CO is one I give to and wholly recommend.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=13211

Though I think people get more satisfaction giving to organizations in the area, so use this as a guide to find one closer to your community,  if you wish
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.results&cgid=5&cuid=12&scopeid=1&overallrtg=4

Edited June 15, 2018 by Vertigo
spelling and added a link

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, Vertigo said:

Doctors Care out of Littleton, CO is one I give to and wholly recommend.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=13211

Though I think people get more satisfaction giving to organizations in the area, so use this as a guide to find one closer to your community,  if you wish
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.results&cgid=5&cuid=12&scopeid=1&overallrtg=4

Outstanding!  Though I didn't ask you (since supposedly you're against government welfare)...but since you mentioned the charity, how much do you give them per year?

[HeloDude]

3 hours ago, Vertigo said:

I just like pointing out hypocrites and watching them defend their hypocrisy.

Kind of like how you defended Obama trying to work with Iran but not Trump trying to work with NK?  Or is it just the returning of the salute thing that bothers you so much?

[Vertigo]

37 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Kind of like how you defended Obama trying to work with Iran but not Trump trying to work with NK?  Or is it just the returning of the salute thing that bothers you so much?

Please point out where I said anything negative regarding Trump trying to work with NK. In fact, you'll find I gave Trump a kudo for his part in getting NK to the table.

 

I don't have an issue with the salute, just like I didn't have an issue with Obama's bow, unlike the hypocrites here who are ok with their guy showing respect but not Obama.

 

As far as my charity giving, it varies by year on what I can afford to give. This last year was substantially lower due to the cost of the divorce lawyer. But on average of say it's around $500 a year.

[brickhistory]

In reading Real Clear Defense  today, there was an article about some more fall out from the Fat Leonard scandal.  From that, there was a link to this article from April of this year.

https://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/report-fat-leonard-corruption-probe-helped-derail-pentagon-s-pick-to-lead-joint-chiefs-1.519972

It, too, is mostly about the Fat Leonard scandal, but this little throwaway line caught my attention:

Then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter had settled on a short list of Locklear and three other finalists, according to a March 30, 2015, email from a White House official that was made public by WikiLeaks.

The email was sent by Christopher Kirchhoff, a National Security Council official, to John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

 

[Azimuth]

On 6/22/2018 at 4:26 PM, brickhistory said:

In reading Real Clear Defense  today, there was an article about some more fall out from the Fat Leonard scandal.  From that, there was a link to this article from April of this year.

https://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/report-fat-leonard-corruption-probe-helped-derail-pentagon-s-pick-to-lead-joint-chiefs-1.519972

It, too, is mostly about the Fat Leonard scandal, but this little throwaway line caught my attention:

Then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter had settled on a short list of Locklear and three other finalists, according to a March 30, 2015, email from a White House official that was made public by WikiLeaks.

The email was sent by Christopher Kirchhoff, a National Security Council official, to John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

 

Too bad the SECDEF isn't the one who appoints the CJCS. He might provide a list, but the POTUS can select whomever he wants.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2016/10/30/hacked-email-offers-unvarnished-view-of-dunford-and-other-military-leaders/

 

[drewpey]

On 6/15/2018 at 10:55 AM, HeloDude said:

So how much of your personal wealth are you voluntarily donating to charities that help provide healthcare/pay for healthcare expenses of those less foryunate than you?  And which specific charities do you use?

$0

[drewpey]

On 6/14/2018 at 11:02 PM, Lawman said:

Gee things different about the two.

 

The fact that the Iran deal was not negotiable because they refused while this is still an active negotiation...

The fact it lapses after 10 years...
 

The fact we were allowing them multiple loopholes to continue enrichment and centrifuge research at military sites we weren’t allowed to inspect by our own agreement... as well as refine their ballistic missile capability.

Look the Iran deal sucked. This deal could very well suck. Difference is the Iran deal was “done” as far as every party outside of us was concerned and was no longer negotiable so we go back to sanctions in the hopes of forcing them back to the table for the same reason they originally showed up. This.... is still the opening stage of a long term discussion and actions. Trump hasn’t agreed or brought some treaty for anything that is final. Let them run this out because the sanctions, the huge military apparatus, and the willingness to turn the hurt back on didn’t go away yesterday with a handshake and some sound bites on CNN. Same as Reagan and Gorbachev didn’t suddenly turn off MAD/Afghanistan/SDI/NATO after the first press junket.

Some people just want to excercise in a self exhaustive effort of sport bitching. 

The Iran deal wasn't perfect, but that's the Republican mindset right now...everything is a zero sum game.  There is no compromise, and if we want to win, someone else has to lose or "bend the knee".  Many experts agreed that while the JCPOA wasn't great, it at a minimum largely froze their program and significantly extended their breakout timeline.  We aren't going to get a country to voluntarily give up nukes, be it Iran or North Korea.

We've trashed the JCPOA for what?  Nothing.  If you had a better deal then great, but so far there is nothing.  You feign concern that Iran could possibly circumvent the JCPOA, so you invalidate it entirely and start aggressively posturing and expect things to get better.  Iran saw what happened to Lybia, and Iran saw what happened to North Korea...what path do you think they will choose?  At least with the JCPOA we had 10 years worth of negotiations and culture change in the country to possibly produce a different outcome.  We just took the 50m target and moved it up to the 5m mark.

For North Korea they already have the bomb, and a means to deliver.  They have made no real concessions of substance, and for some reason despite North Korea stating numerous times in the past that they want to denuclearize, THIS time we believe them, and it's a total win even though there are zero specifics.

In the end I honestly don't care if lil Kim keeps the bomb, as long as we don't get dragged into a bloody war and he keeps his nukes secured.  Opening up relations with a dictator sucks, but the best you can hope for is to pipe in some K-pop, NBA and ISP blockers and go for the long-term cultural victory.  If Trump can convince his base this is the "best deal ever" then so be it.  My concern is that Trump believes himself that lil Kim will actually denuclearize.  When Trump finds out that's not the case, he will likely feel like his loyalty was betrayed and push us closer to war.

Remember perfect is the enemy of good.  Trump says he wants perfect.

[BashiChuni]

The Iran deal? Lol

[brickhistory]

16 hours ago, Azimuth said:

Too bad the SECDEF isn't the one who appoints the CJCS. He might provide a list, but the POTUS can select whomever he wants.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2016/10/30/hacked-email-offers-unvarnished-view-of-dunford-and-other-military-leaders/

 

And you forgot to mention the Senate's advise and consent role in this process.

Which is not my point.

Regardless of political leanings, one's eyebrow should at least raise when finding evidence of a NSC staffer contacting the campaign manager of a candidate, never mind about sensitive senior personnel matters.

[HeloDude]

3 hours ago, drewpey said:

$0

Hard to then take you seriously when you say you care about people less fortunate than yourself.  But I appreciate your honesty!