Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is the reality. Obama and the HRC State department has cuased more issues and has presented th US Foriegn Policy as weak.
Obama failed to deal with issue direct on the problem. He used phrase like lead from behind and carefully created a message to not afend radical Islam.
Trump sees Issa from a practicle point of view and they must be nuetralized period. Not all Miltary Operations go off perfectly, but at least the Presensident is willing to try more agressive operations.
What is concerning there is Obama Loyist who has given up secrets to achieve politcal goals. That is ver concerning!
This is the reality. Obama and the HRC State department has cuased more issues and has presented th US Foriegn Policy as weak.
Obama failed to deal with issue direct on the problem. He used phrase like lead from behind and carefully created a message to not afend radical Islam.
Trump sees Issa from a practicle point of view and they must be nuetralized period. Not all Miltary Operations go off perfectly, but at least the Presensident is willing to try more agressive operations.
What is concerning there is Obama Loyist who has given up secrets to achieve politcal goals. That is ver concerning!
If you do not understand the Past you will be doomed to repeat it. If it was not for the failed Policies of Obama and HRC we would not be at this point.
Trump is a hands on guy and will deal with the Leaks from with in the threats to this country.
So when is Trump putting on his fatigues and picking up his gun to take command of an attack force?
When did The Great Obama, Warrior of Warriors, do that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by blktoptrvl
aren't these top generals pretty much the same generals that have been running the military for the past eight years? If these generals couldn't defeat ISIS within weeks then, how can they now?
They didn't try to defeat ISIS.
Obama the Wise and Just wouldn't let them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Terrier
So Tramp is going to Syria and Iraq to fight them?
Yes, just like Obama the Invincible and Marvelous did, his Likeness to Behold!
If you do not understand the Past you will be doomed to repeat it. If it was not for the failed Policies of Obama and HRC we would not be at this point.
Trump is a hands on guy and will deal with the Leaks from with in the threats to this country.
Ah....you mean like when we went into Vietnam or when Russia went into Afghanistan? Both highly successful campaigns
Fighting a war on ISIS isn't possible. ISIS isn't a country, you can't "go to war" against them because you don't know who they are. Fighting a war on terrorism is impossible...just like trying to fight a war against guerillas. It's an invisible enemy, they could be anywhere, everywhere or nowhere. You can't tell a radical Islamic terrorist apart from a peace loving christian by the color of their skin.
Just how would this "war" be fought? You want just bomb every predominately Muslim country off the map?
Probably. but it still wouldn't stop. For every terrorist you kill, you'd take out a thousand innocent civilians. The only thing that would result in is the creation of more terrorists.
If you want to end terrorism (which I don't think is possible at this point) we're gonna need some real out of the box kind of thinking. Not boots or bombs. A good start would be to mind our own freaking business by staying out of conflicts in the Middle East.....the WHOLE Middle East... and take care of problems right here at home.
I think it will be the most EPIC moment a person has ever experienced, let alone a President.
The destruction of ISIS.
The most widespread enemy in world history, kneeling before President Trump.
Kissing his feet.
Where are you getting the idea that 1) ISIS is the most "widespread enemy in the world" (I'm not even sure I know what that's supposed to mean), 2) that Trump has/will destroy ISIS, and 3) that ISIS, which is backed by a toxic ideology (a totalitarian one; meaning it does not need a leader to thrive), even can be destroyed.
I can think of a bigger enemy -- Leftism, also defined as collectivism in any form -- Stalin's brand as well as Hitler's, OWS and BLM as much as the IRA and KKK; the mistaken idea that wealth and human progress spring from anything other than individual effort, and that it is the right of a supposedly-enlightened elite -- be it a "New World Order" (largely imaginary), or the usual collection of unmotivated rubbish from the gutters, led by some charismatic ideologue -- promising a bonus to every bum and sustaining the mistaken notion that there's a vault full of somebody else's money available to pay for it.
Leftism is any left wing political though, which cannot "also" be defined as 'collectivism in any form.'
Stalin and Hitler hated each other. OWS was more than anything an attack on rampant consumerism. BLM is superficial. The IRA wanted Irish independence (not a collectivist point of view). The KKK was also not collectivist in the slightest. All you're doing is saying things you don't like, and calling them leftist. To put it as nicely as I can: that's ****ing stupid.
Leftism is not a unified ideology. It's not a proper political label. It's similar to saying "I'm a human" when asked what you're name is. It's true, but too vague to be even slightly useful information. Left wing thought is broad and you're attempting to make it narrow, simply so that you can control a narrative; one that plenty of people aren't stupid enough to actually go along with. If you sincerely view the center left ideals of Bill Clinton and the far left totalitarian views of Joseph Stalin as being the same, then I can't help you. No one can. You're just not intelligent. End of story.
Quote:
Donald Trump is no libertarian -- be it spelled with a capital or lower-case 'l'; but he represents a break from the stagnation of the previous 24 years. He was elected by people who'd simply had enough: how to turn this into something more than another cycle of stagnation, blame-throwing, and dependency is yet to be worked out.
Nothing you said has anything to do with libertarianism. Libertarianism is not the opposite of stagnation. The words your thinking of might be things like populism, nationalism, or despotism. The last one's noticeably more cynical but barring news organization (who are ****ty; no question) in an attempt to control media narrative is pure evil.
Quote:
But the answer won't come from that collection of whiners and losers called the Democrats, or their well-ensconced allies in the so-called "mainstream" media.
Sure... repeating talking points. So kewl
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
