EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Politics, Religion, Salsa Recipes, etc. Everything you shouldn't bring up at your Uncle's house.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby Seahawks4Ever » Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:16 am

Trump just amended Executive order 13223 that was first issued on (-14-2001. This order gives the military the power to recall any RETIRED member of the REGULAR ARMY, NAVY, and AIR FORCE. There is also a "crisis" with the Air Force facing a dearth of experienced pilots so they plan to start recalling thousands of RETIED Pilots. Oh, and none of subject to recall are ones that still have any obligations (such as reserve service) left. This is sort of like STOP/LOSS that was put in to affect during the Bush 43 Admin. at the height of the War in Iraq.

So, I guess we now know exactly what Trump meant when he said that there was "a calm before the storm" commenting after a group picture was taken at the White House a few weeks ago.

I can understand being "proactive" and not wanting to wait until an adversary struck us first but I don't trust Trump, I will NE#VER trust Trump and now that 2 out of the 3 generals he has surrounded himself with in the WH already have been caught lying their fannies off, just like their boss.

It has been apparent for some time that Trump has been itching to instigate a war some where, ANYWHERE so long as he gets to attack and bomb somebody. Trump has also been wanting to NUKE another country, I am sure either Iran or North Korea would fill the bill.

With the way that they sped up their missile tests and appear to have graduated from a fission nuclear bomb to a thermal nuclear fusion hydrogen bomb there COULD be a case made against N. Korea.

But, something tells me the more likely target is going to be Iran and Iran is NOT a "clear and present danger" at this time. I am sure that Israel would be thrilled if we were to go to war with Iran. But, is it in OUR BEST INTEREST right NOW?????? NO WAY!!!!

Trump will NOT attack N. Korea because Putin and XI don't want him to and Trump would NOT do something that would disappoint Putin.

Trump and the GOP are going to DESTROY our nation people, time to pull your head out of your collective fannies or MILLIONS of people are going to DIE, and many will be Americans, is that what any of you truly want???

The silence in this forum is deafening, this sure doesn't remind me of those of us that had hotly debated our response to the attack on 9-11-2011.

I do not see how ANYONE can be silent when our president lies incesently and now he even has his Chief of Staff tell bald face lies in smearing a sitting member of congress. To me, that is what I find DISGUSTING. That a man like General John Kelly (ret.) would not only throw his own integrity away but would invoke the memory of his deceased son to set up his bald faced lies about a member of congress. He might as well walked up to his son's grave, pulled his pants down and took a crap on it.

If you ONLY watch FOX News or read Breitbart and Info wars you probably believe everything he and that POS Trump say. Sad, truly sad.

There was the Revolutionary War, there was the Civil War (War between the States) and now the 3rd. Revolution has begun.

I have news for you, Trump and the GOP don't plan on having ANY more national elections for fear of what the populace will do to them once they are turned from power. I know many of you are what I would call a "Trumtard" and will dispute everything I have said. I say you are either really STUPID or you plan on joining in on the corruption and have been "drooling" over the "spoils" you feel entitled to.

To those of you who understand what Trump and the Republicans in Congress (and state houses all across America) are doing WHY HAVE YOU BEEN SO SILENT??????????????????????????????????? Are you just waiting to see which side gains the upper hand BEFORE you act????

To those that say or imply that there are "bad" people on "both sides" and that you just don't want to get "involved".

F.U. If your eyes and ears can't see clearly that Trump and the GOP leadership in Congress are what one would call a true & present danger.
Seahawks4Ever
Legacy
 
Posts: 1280
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:56 pm

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby burrrton » Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:32 am

LOL. 5am is a little early to be drunk ranting, isn't it?
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 2983
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby idhawkman » Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:36 am

burrrton wrote:LOL. 5am is a little early to be drunk ranting, isn't it?


This ^^^^^

It amazes me how people fly off the handle on what Trump does without actually understanding what he did.
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby Aseahawkfan » Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:42 pm

I'm so tired of drunk idiots thinking a president can somehow do whatever he feels like doing. The only attack coming is on North Korea if we attack anyone at all. There isn't anywhere near an attack coming on Iran. This attack on North Korea will be supported by Republicans and Democrats, not just the GOP and Trump. Our country doesn't work that way, which is exactly why the Democrats were as culpable for Iraq as the Republicans. It's pure political pablum that people believe the Democrats didn't want war in Iraq. You've already seen they can block what they want to block when they feel like doing so and vice versa.

Your bias towards Israel is showing. Typical of an idgit conspiracy theorist that overestimates Israel's influence on America, while completely ignoring our relationship with Saudi Arabia.

Fools like you are why this country will never be right again. You want to believe in huge conspiracy theories that never materialize. You're like religious folk predicting the end of the world. Or the global warming cult claiming humans are all done unless we cut carbon emissions as though humans have complete control of the earth's climate.

I'll wait until I see enough of you conspiracy theorists with the balls to take up arms and see if you can make this nation into something better than it is. I doubt you can. You've never been able to make a better world ever in the history of mankind. All the changes is who is doing the brutalizing. You would just push your insane view on everyone at with guns and violence just like the people you think you're opposing. If you truly believe the government is lying to you and has in the past and it's only the GOP, then rally the supposedly weak ass Democrats to rise up and retake the nation by force, see if they make it any better.

The world will always be ruled by the more driven, power-hungry, and harder working people. Even in these revolutions, the same people come out on top eventually. All you'll do with this revolution is create a new power vacuum that will end up exactly the same way as before. If you somehow create smaller nations than a United America, then you will make us prey for the bigger players like Russia, China, and even India. Learn how the world works because it will likely never be any different as long as humans are running it.

And Trump will leave at the end of his term or a second term, unless he's killed or impeached. I have heard this tried garbage for every president since George Bush Jr. And it has never happened, not even close. Please stop with the over-hyped bull crap about national elections being gone and other stupid predictions.

The best system ever implemented to improve human life is regulated capitalism. Why? Because it is the only system that makes it profitable to improve day to day human life. Capitalism has done more to improve humanity tan any system in history. It's sad that too many people in this world don't acknowledge that reality, especially hypocritical for hipster socialists playing on cell phones on the Internet while being anti-capitalist.
Last edited by Aseahawkfan on Sun Oct 22, 2017 12:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby RiverDog » Sat Oct 21, 2017 4:38 pm

I don't like Donald Trump, didn't vote for him in 2016, won't vote for him in 2020 (if he's re-nominated), I don't support a lot of his agenda, I feel that he's unfit for the presidency, and feel that he's perhaps one of the worst POTUS's we've had in the past 100 years.

But I'm not going to run around and act as if the sky is falling.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Trump's apparent lunacy and unpredictability has to scare the daylights out of our foes. It's not dissimilar to when Reagan was in office. Back in the 80's when the USSR was very much a threat, the Demo libs were beside themselves, were certain about that dime store cowboy starting WW3, but his tough talk had the exact opposite effect. There's just a chance that a wild eyed lunatic Donald Trump's behavior could be keeping our foes from getting cute.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7251
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby Aseahawkfan » Sun Oct 22, 2017 12:35 am

RiverDog wrote:I don't like Donald Trump, didn't vote for him in 2016, won't vote for him in 2020 (if he's re-nominated), I don't support a lot of his agenda, I feel that he's unfit for the presidency, and feel that he's perhaps one of the worst POTUS's we've had in the past 100 years.

But I'm not going to run around and act as if the sky is falling.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Trump's apparent lunacy and unpredictability has to scare the daylights out of our foes. It's not dissimilar to when Reagan was in office. Back in the 80's when the USSR was very much a threat, the Demo libs were beside themselves, were certain about that dime store cowboy starting WW3, but his tough talk had the exact opposite effect. There's just a chance that a wild eyed lunatic Donald Trump's behavior could be keeping our foes from getting cute.


I'm fairly certain if someone tests Trump, he's going to go to war because he has nothing to risk. No children in the military and only financial assets at risk world wide in areas likely to be unaffected by a war. with North Korea A chance at all the glory without many consequences. Perfect situation for a narcissist looking to make his mark on history. Trump wants some feather in his cap come next election or when he leaves the office to brag about until he buys the farm.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby Hawktawk » Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:01 am

RiverDog wrote:I don't like Donald Trump, didn't vote for him in 2016, won't vote for him in 2020 (if he's re-nominated), I don't support a lot of his agenda, I feel that he's unfit for the presidency, and feel that he's perhaps one of the worst POTUS's we've had in the past 100 years.

But I'm not going to run around and act as if the sky is falling.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Trump's apparent lunacy and unpredictability has to scare the daylights out of our foes. It's not dissimilar to when Reagan was in office. Back in the 80's when the USSR was very much a threat, the Demo libs were beside themselves, were certain about that dime store cowboy starting WW3, but his tough talk had the exact opposite effect. There's just a chance that a wild eyed lunatic Donald Trump's behavior could be keeping our foes from getting cute.


RD you are one of my favorite posters. You give everyone the benefit of the doubt and trust the system to protect us.
But it really annoys me when anyone compares this utter POS to Ronald Reagan. Sure there was the bombing starts in 10'minutes joke but it was delivered with great humor, an obvious joke. Reagan was an articulate spokesman and consistent in his beliefs. He was respected abroad and presided over the demise of the Soviet Union.
Trump sucks up to our greatest geopolitical foe who wants to bring back the Soviet Union.
He is vulgar, crude, intellectually lazy or unequipped or both.
It is a supreme insult to Reagan and guys like me who revere him to compare him to this mentally ill vulgarian.
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 2708
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby burrrton » Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:28 am

Tawk, you know I *generally* share your assessment of Trump, but in one 8-sentence post, if you can't help but call him a "piece of s***", "vulgar", "crude", "intellectually lazy/unequipped", "mentally ill", and "vulgarian", I'm not sure you're the best one to be assessing the mental health of an individual.

Get ahold of yourself- it's become trite to say, but this inability to maintain composure over the guy (a characteristic you of course share with too many in this country) is going to hand him another 4 years.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 2983
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby Seahawkgal » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:36 am

Fart.
Seahawkgal
Legacy
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:08 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby RiverDog » Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:12 pm

Hawktawk wrote:RD you are one of my favorite posters. You give everyone the benefit of the doubt and trust the system to protect us.
But it really annoys me when anyone compares this utter POS to Ronald Reagan. Sure there was the bombing starts in 10'minutes joke but it was delivered with great humor, an obvious joke. Reagan was an articulate spokesman and consistent in his beliefs. He was respected abroad and presided over the demise of the Soviet Union.
Trump sucks up to our greatest geopolitical foe who wants to bring back the Soviet Union.
He is vulgar, crude, intellectually lazy or unequipped or both.
It is a supreme insult to Reagan and guys like me who revere him to compare him to this mentally ill vulgarian.


I appreciate the kind words, HT. But I wasn't comparing Trump to Reagan. I was using the reaction the left had to Reagan's tough talk, ie worried that he'd start WW3, as a way to suggest that our modern day foes might be just as, if not more scared of what Trump might do as we are. Without getting into their heads to tell exactly what they're thinking, you still have to acknowledge that the fear what Trump might do could be a strong deterrent to them. You know the saying...every cloud has a silver lining.

And I have to agree with burrton. You're really going over the top with some of your characterizations. At least if you're addressing me, you don't have to use them to make your point as I already know what you think of him and I pretty much agree with your appraisals. It makes you look like a lunatic. Ironically, your style and mannerisms are making you look as off the rails as Trump is.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7251
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby Aseahawkfan » Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:39 pm

Trump isn't nearly as gracious, well-spoken, or grandfatherly as Reagan, unless your grandfather is some overbearing narcissist drunk on his own ego.

Trump's a narcissistic, egomaniac salesman that somehow won the presidency. He runs the White House like a reality TV show showing the whole world his dirty laundry daily, while getting in incredibly stupid spats over things that shouldn't even be relevant or arguable by either side like calls to fallen soldiers or kneeling protests. Who cares about that small potato crap while we have much larger issues he should be taking care of. I'm still amazed anyone is worried about this guy becoming a dictator considering neither side really likes him that much, especially the politicians in Washington. He's even driving his "fellow" Republicans nuts. You need to have commanding military support to have any chance of a dictatorship and that just isn't the case in America for a whole lot of reasons.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby RiverDog » Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:42 am

Aseahawkfan wrote:Trump isn't nearly as gracious, well-spoken, or grandfatherly as Reagan, unless your grandfather is some overbearing narcissist drunk on his own ego.

Trump's a narcissistic, egomaniac salesman that somehow won the presidency. He runs the White House like a reality TV show showing the whole world his dirty laundry daily, while getting in incredibly stupid spats over things that shouldn't even be relevant or arguable by either side like calls to fallen soldiers or kneeling protests. Who cares about that small potato crap while we have much larger issues he should be taking care of. I'm still amazed anyone is worried about this guy becoming a dictator considering neither side really likes him that much, especially the politicians in Washington. He's even driving his "fellow" Republicans nuts. You need to have commanding military support to have any chance of a dictatorship and that just isn't the case in America for a whole lot of reasons.


All true. Ronald Reagan was so respectful of the presidency that he wouldn't even take off his suit coat while in the Oval Office. Even Bill Clinton, whom I felt was a disgrace to the office, doesn't even register a blip compared to the person that now occupies it. It's a crying shame.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7251
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby Hawktawk » Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:25 am

burrrton wrote:Tawk, you know I *generally* share your assessment of Trump, but in one 8-sentence post, if you can't help but call him a "piece of s***", "vulgar", "crude", "intellectually lazy/unequipped", "mentally ill", and "vulgarian", I'm not sure you're the best one to be assessing the mental health of an individual.

Get ahold of yourself- it's become trite to say, but this inability to maintain composure over the guy (a characteristic you of course share with too many in this country) is going to hand him another 4 years.


I resemble those remarks :lol: :lol: :lol: .
Burrt it takes one to know one. As a man diagnosed extreme bipolar in 2011 and medicated I know both sides of the coin well. I was always very intelligent and a hard worker but I would lurch from crisis to crisis. I was extremely unorganized and my workplace was a mess. I had zero attention span. On and on. Not to play web MD but meds helped me a lot. Still not a complete solution but meds as well as accepting the diagnosis has made it manageable.
But now I see a guy way more messed up than I ever was and more mentally ill as well. I always knew I had problems. He won't admit any problem. I never abused women or employees even though I've spent 4 decades in management. When I made mistakes I apologized and people who worked for me 20 years ago are still my friends. Trump backs down or apologizes to nobody, not even a grieving widow, and tramples the carcasses of people who have helped him that he no longer needs.


As a lifelong conservative I obviously wasn't a fan of Obama either and was pretty harsh. But honestly I don't remember referring to him in quite those terms.I like him A LOT better now. It's telling when Nancy Pelosi says, "we would take anyone else,Reagan, Bush, MCCain, Romney, anyone. Me too... Id rather be suffering in loyal opposition to Hillary Clinton any day at this point. Obama too. I never went to bed wondering if morning would come under Obama.

I appreciate the effort to talk me off the ledge but frankly i'm lucid and clear eyed. Hes all that I've described and more. There really aren't words to describe it that are not vulgar other than extreme bipolar narcissist adhd. Scary, thats a good one.

Plenty of politicians including more and more republicans and especially retired military and intelligence people are speaking to their fears of this commander in chief and it's always been my #1 issue for years since he decided to run. Over 800 mental health experts, therapists etc nationwide have now been on the record as saying the guy isn't fit to be commander in chief with all the loose wiring upstairs. Hes picked a fight with everyone on the planet including his own party, gold star widows and mothers and fathers, NFL, media, everyone but Vlad Putin....

Its time to sound the alarm. Impeach or 25th amendment now.....
And if mr 37% limps through the Mueller Minefield to 2020 without starting WW3 he will get drubbed.
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 2708
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby burrrton » Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:16 am

Tawk, if you can't discuss him without rapid fire derogatory remarks and curse words every sentence you write, I'll have to disagree with your diagnosis of "lucid and clear eyed".

I never abused women


What women did he abuse? I mean, I have no doubt he was an entitled douche, but is there a settled case of sexual abuse I've missed? Or are you talking about the "grab 'em" comment?

It's telling when Nancy Pelosi says, "we would take anyone else,Reagan, Bush, MCCain, Romney, anyone.


It's only telling in that it tells us how full of sh*t she is- she wouldn't "take" any Republican. Make no mistake- she'd be calling *every* one of them Literally Hitler™, too.

And if mr 37% limps through the Mueller Minefield to 2020 without starting WW3 he will get drubbed.


The only 'Mueller Mines' I've heard about are those indicting Hillary and Obama, but I think if:

A) People can't get a grip and continue calling everyone who supports him to any degree Racist White Supremacist Literal Nazis™

and

B) They get tax reform passed and the economy continues to improve

He'll be re-elected no matter who the Dems run (short of them finding the next JFK).
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 2983
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby Hawktawk » Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:52 am

Tawk, if you can't discuss him without rapid fire derogatory remarks and curse words every sentence you write, I'll have to disagree with your diagnosis of "lucid and clear eyed".

Trust me if Corker wasn't civilized and dignified he would use worse language along with many who reportedly do.I read a direct quote from a Cruz staffer "what in the F did you expect?"
After another volley of tweets this morning ripping him with falsehoods Corker responded with #alerthedaycarestaff#
Tillerson called him an Fing Moron according to 3 different sources present. Is he delusional?
Trump is perhaps one of the meanest most self absorbed miserable human beings I've ever had the displeasure of observing operate and he is POTUS for crying out loud. No vulgar remark is strong enough.

What women did he abuse? I mean, I have no doubt he was an entitled douche, but is there a settled case of sexual abuse I've missed? Or are you talking about the "grab 'em" comment?men did he abuse? I mean, I have no doubt he was an entitled douche, but is there a settled case of sexual abuse I've missed? Or are you talking about the "grab 'em" comment?

Yeah after he admitted he grabs pussy without consent because hes "a star and they let you grab em by the pussy grab em by whatever" and "I went after her like a b****"referring as a man married to a pregnant Melania discussing another married woman...
12 women indeed came forward to confirm that a sexual predator is exactly who he is. Actually 14 if you include Ivana who stated in court filings during her divorce that he violently sexually assaulted her in a fit of rage after a scalp stretching operation. She later recanted, shocking for someone with access to a billion dollar fortune on the line.The guy has referred to his own daughter as "voluptuous" "a piece of ass" and said "if she werent my daughter Id be dating her". This isnt normal behavior...
There was also a woman suing him for raping her at age 13 whose counsel released a statement dropping the suit days before the election out of fear for her safety. One woman , a former apprentice contestant who claims he grabbed her breasts and kissed her is suing for defamation of character since he used 15 minutes of a stump speech mere days before the election calling all the women liars, disgusting and threatened to sue them all after the election. Of course he didnt and wont because of this little thing called DISCOVERY.His sleazeball attorneys are trying to get the discovery process stopped not on the merits but because they argue a sitting president cannot be sued.She is only asking for 2K because she just wants the truth and has said she will drop the suit if he apologizes. Good luck on that.

My honest guess if 12 were willing to come forward there's probably twice as many as the weinstein guy.
Its disgusting we have a not only verbal but physical abuser of women as chief law enforcement officer of the nation.
Guilty as hell but the 37% don't care as they post their memes linking Weinstein and slick willie with democrats.
The disconnect is staggering, mind numbing.
Trumpism is a cult at this point, flat out
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 2708
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby burrrton » Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:41 am

Is he delusional?


My point has nothing to do with the accuracy of the charges- it refers to the inability to have a rational discussion without regurgitating every last derogatory remark about the guy that's ever crossed your mind, accurate or not.

You sound like you have Tourette's.

12 women indeed came forward to confirm that a sexual predator is exactly who he is. Actually 14 if you include Ivana who stated in court filings during her divorce that he violently sexually assaulted her in a fit of rage after a scalp stretching operation. She later recanted


He threatened to sue them, dared them to press charges, didn't settle with any of them, and they dropped the issue as far as I've heard (I know of no pending litigation- maybe you do).

Again, I wouldn't be *at all* surprised, but comparing his situation to Weinstein is silly, and throwing around the "abuser" charge as if it's been proven doesn't seem fair. I was in locker rooms virtually every day from 7th grade through college and if you think "I grab 'em by the p*ssy" talk is proof positive of rape, I could introduce you to hundreds of rapists.

Trumpism is a cult at this point


Agree, and I'll add that this cult behavior has become a trait of politics in 2017. Look at the Obama and Hillary supporters for more examples.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 2983
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby idhawkman » Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:27 am

burrrton wrote:
He'll be re-elected no matter who the Dems run (short of them finding the next JFK).


LOL, if JFK ran today, he'd be running as a republican since his views and policies are more reflective of republican policies.

Like Reagan said, "I didn't leave the democrat party, the democrat party left me."
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby idhawkman » Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:36 am

burrrton wrote:

He threatened to sue them, dared them to press charges, didn't settle with any of them, and they dropped the issue as far as I've heard (I know of no pending litigation- maybe you do).

Again, I wouldn't be *at all* surprised, but comparing his situation to Weinstein is silly, and throwing around the "abuser" charge as if it's been proven doesn't seem fair. I was in locker rooms virtually every day from 7th grade through college and if you think "I grab 'em by the p*ssy" talk is proof positive of rape, I could introduce you to hundreds of rapists.

I think the Rolling Stone magazine could teach people about rape charges. They all need to be investigated and settled but if you see a Rich man standing there and try to get money out of them with a charge, you drop it when they want to fight because you know it is not true. If it is true, like Paula Jones, Cathlene Willy, Anita Broderick, you don't let it go. You keep it going and see it through because you are right and it happened.


Agree, and I'll add that this cult behavior has become a trait of politics in 2017. Look at the Obama and Hillary supporters for more examples.


Most of the slurs and derogatory comments about the president are false and fake. I'm going to say it here now, in 2020 he will have over 400 electoral votes regardless of how many fights he picks on twitter. People vote with their pocket books and so far, the elitist democrats have left their voters and are in it for themselves.

This Uranium ONe deal is going to blow the democrats up for decades and will be worse than watergate. Wait and see.
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby burrrton » Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:37 am

if JFK ran today, he'd be running as a republican since his views and policies are more reflective of republican policies.


Yup.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 2983
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby Hawktawk » Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:18 am

burrrton wrote:[quote

My point has nothing to do with the accuracy of the charges- it refers to the inability to have a rational discussion without regurgitating every last derogatory remark about the guy that's ever crossed your mind, accurate or not.

You sound like you have Tourette's.

I think I have Tourette's too!!!!! What's that got to do with my analysis? He's far more mentally ill than I am. Corker ripped him again this morning saying the debasement of the office will be his greatest lasting legacy and that he "will not ever rise to the stature of the office". I cant remember a Senator ever questioning the President of his own party about his fitness for office. I cant ever remember discussions about the 25th amendment or psychiatrists coming out of the woodwork questioning any president.
Who is rational here? the sheep who will put up with this? Wake up!

I don't get your point. I call him what he is and Im delusional? Im not wrong and my admitted diagnosed mental illness is not a factor in the discourse. His is...

12 women indeed came forward to confirm that a sexual predator is exactly who he is. Actually 14 if you include Ivana who stated in court filings during her divorce that he violently sexually assaulted her in a fit of rage after a scalp stretching operation. She later recanted


He threatened to sue them, dared them to press charges, didn't settle with any of them, and they dropped the issue as far as I've heard (I know of no pending litigation- maybe you do).

Trump is indeed being sued for defamation of character and his lawyers are working overtime trying to get it tossed, so far unsuccessfully.
As I said no way in hell he sues, ever. Discovery will dredge up so much dirt.

Again, I wouldn't be *at all* surprised, but comparing his situation to Weinstein is silly, and throwing around the "abuser" charge as if it's been proven doesn't seem fair. I was in locker rooms virtually every day from 7th grade through college and if you think "I grab 'em by the p*ssy" talk is proof positive of rape, I could introduce you to hundreds of rapists.


Its fair. Trump was accused by a dozen women and ONLY AFTER THE TAPE SURFACED AND GAVE THEM COVER TO GO PUBLIC. Most could prove proximity to him at the time of the accusation including a people magazine reporter who was doing an article and was molested forcefully while his wife Melania and young son Barron were in another room of the mansion at Mara Lago. The woman at Flushing Meadows who had never met him before said he put his hand up her skirt and grabbed her breast. She said" everybody knows who he is". A woman in a bar said he reached up her skirt and looked right at her smiling while he did it. A woman on an airplane in the 80s said the same thing. The accounts are a bit complex and diverse to be all made up out of whole cloth. His denials consisted primarily of attacking their appearance saying he would never do someone who looked like that.
Well Tiger did a pancake house waitress, so much for that excuse. LIAR.

I believe the women. He is indeed a complete POS woman abuser and psychopath and I hope America can be rid of him before its too late.

Trumpism is a cult at this point


Agree, and I'll add that this cult behavior has become a trait of politics in 2017. Look at the Obama and Hillary supporters for more examples.[/quote]

Not disagreeing here. Politics has gotten so polarized nobody will accept that there are more important things than winning an election and integrity in politics is incompatible with either party or their rabid base.
I voted for Johnson so its not my fault but Im still going to be Paul Revere.

The alarm needs to be sounded. The man is a clear and present danger to the entire planet.
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 2708
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby RiverDog » Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:04 pm

idhawkman wrote:LOL, if JFK ran today, he'd be running as a republican since his views and policies are more reflective of republican policies.

Like Reagan said, "I didn't leave the democrat party, the democrat party left me."


Impossible to predict. If you look at things in a vacuum, then yes, JFK's politics of the early 60's are eerily similar to today's Republican party. But that assumes that Kennedy's personal views and philosophies would have remained unchanged. Health care, abortion, and the environment, are just a few of the issues that did not exist then to the same degree that they exist today. In 1960, the campaign was the missile gap, civil rights, and religion (JFK was the first Roman Catholic to run for POTUS). The Vietnam War, the cultural revolution, political assassinations, and race riots hadn't happened yet, so who knows how those events might have shaped his thinking.

My guess is that Kennedy would have remained a Democrat. He was not the type of person that would buck the system, more of a go-with-the-flow guy, and would have moved to the left like most of the other Democrats of his day.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7251
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby Aseahawkfan » Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:54 pm

RiverDog wrote:All true. Ronald Reagan was so respectful of the presidency that he wouldn't even take off his suit coat while in the Oval Office. Even Bill Clinton, whom I felt was a disgrace to the office, doesn't even register a blip compared to the person that now occupies it. It's a crying shame.


I don't know. Clinton was well-spoken, but he seriously disrespected the presidency, in my opinion as bad as Trump to this point. Then again I'm not a fan of Kennedy and the embrace by the Democrats of shaming your wife and child by cheating on her while you are the president. Then he lied about it while on the stand. Clinton was a well-spoken, slick lawyer fully embracing the Machiavellian leadership method of being ostensibly virtuous, while being a slimebag behind the scenes. And Democratic supporters fully embrace this because Kennedy is one of their idols. I despise the smug grins of so many Democrats dismissing Clinton's treatment of his wife and child with all the women he cheated on as "no big deal." They continue to laud the man that was a factor in Hilary losing the presidency. I guarantee not everyone was hornswaggled by what she did. A huge negative part of her character was staying with a man we all knew cheated on her purely for career gain. That is not good character in my opinion, nearly as bad as Trump. It may not have been a dramatic effect, but people remember that kind of garbage.

I seriously wonder if there have ever been two candidates with worse character than Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby RiverDog » Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:55 pm

Aseahawkfan wrote:I don't know. Clinton was well-spoken, but he seriously disrespected the presidency, in my opinion as bad as Trump to this point. Then again I'm not a fan of Kennedy and the embrace by the Democrats of shaming your wife and child by cheating on her while you are the president. Then he lied about it while on the stand. Clinton was a well-spoken, slick lawyer fully embracing the Machiavellian leadership method of being ostensibly virtuous, while being a slimebag behind the scenes. And Democratic supporters fully embrace this because Kennedy is one of their idols. I despise the smug grins of so many Democrats dismissing Clinton's treatment of his wife and child with all the women he cheated on as "no big deal." They continue to laud the man that was a factor in Hilary losing the presidency. I guarantee not everyone was hornswaggled by what she did. A huge negative part of her character was staying with a man we all knew cheated on her purely for career gain. That is not good character in my opinion, nearly as bad as Trump. It may not have been a dramatic effect, but people remember that kind of garbage.

I seriously wonder if there have ever been two candidates with worse character than Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump.


Change the word "candidates" to "nominees" and you will get my 100% agreement. David Duke was a candidate, as was George Wallace and Strom Thurmond.

Agreed about Clinton. His behavior was despicable. I find it very hypocritical for those that decry Trump for the "grab them by their p&ssy" words when he wasn't in office while forgiving Clinton's actions which included banging a 21 year old with his cigar in the same part of female anatomy while he was in office.

Nevertheless, I still think that I'd rather see Slick Willy as POTUS than Trump.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7251
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby idhawkman » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:07 am

Hawktawk wrote:The alarm needs to be sounded. The man is a clear and present danger to the entire planet.


That's just your opinion. To many others (half the U.S. and growing) he is the answer and Obama was and still is a Clear and Present danger.
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby c_hawkbob » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:13 am

idhawkman wrote:half the U.S. and growing


You mean 40% and dwindling.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 3130
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: K-evil Kentucky, 42053

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby kalibane » Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:12 am

JFK would have been a Republican? You can't be serious, even if you don't go through the thought exercise that Riv proposed. Are you basing this off the fact that he lowered taxes from a 91% top marginal rate that was left over from Roosevelt? Because seriously... context.

Since Reagan, BOTH parties have moved significantly to the Right. This election was the first real dramatic shift to the Left with the prominence of Bernie Sanders. Up until now (well arguably still now, but there is a big debate where as before it was a forgone conclusion), the party was all about Clintonism which was a complete abandonment of the traditional liberal policies of guys like Hart, Mondale and such. They represented a conscious move to the right to attempt to appeal to the moderate voters in the Reagan coalition. The only things that have gotten progressively more liberal for democrats are hot button social issues like abortion and civil rights. And those aren't even traditionally ideals unique to democrats.

JFK would in a vacuum would have absolutely remained a democrat today unless his catholic faith prevented him from going down that road with Abortion... But let's be real, this was a man who brought his mistress to the White House to sing happy birthday to him so I don't see him making that kind of moral stand. He believed in deficit spending, increased minimum wage, bolstered social programs like Social Security and passed Urban Renewal. Not only would he not have a place in today's Republican Party... I kinda doubt Reagan would either. He'd be in that weird area occupied by the likes of Colin Powell and Kasich who left and/or are considering leaving the Republican Party. He was not extreme enough and too willing to make deals with the other side of the aisle. The Tea Party wing would never accept him.
kalibane
Legacy
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby burrrton » Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:52 am

If you look at things in a vacuum, then yes, JFK's politics of the early 60's are eerily similar to today's Republican party. But that assumes that Kennedy's personal views and philosophies would have remained unchanged.


I don't think it really assumes that at all, RD- the point is that the JFK everyone romanticizes about was a defense hawk, a deficit hawk, anti-abortion, and believed lowering taxes stimulated growth. To varying degrees, any one of those things would disqualify him.

Of course he would have evolved significantly over the ensuing decades, but I don't think that's what his fanboys/girls are pondering.

*That* JFK couldn't have so much as sniffed the Dem nomination today. Hell, Bill Clinton couldn't have, either. And yeah, Reagan probably couldn't have gotten the R nom with the nutty factions that have cropped up on that side, too.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 2983
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby Aseahawkfan » Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:46 pm

Anyone still buying the polls after they "predicted" the election? I don't buy them for or against Trump. National polls are garbage.

Fact is Trump's supporters still like him and will likely vote for him and they don't care about polls. And those against him are still against him and they will use polls to claim they're right that his base is shrinking. We'll only know for sure during election time.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby RiverDog » Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:48 pm

"If you look at things in a vacuum, then yes, JFK's politics of the early 60's are eerily similar to today's Republican party. But that assumes that Kennedy's personal views and philosophies would have remained unchanged"

burrrton wrote:
I don't think it really assumes that at all, RD- the point is that the JFK everyone romanticizes about was a defense hawk, a deficit hawk, anti-abortion, and believed lowering taxes stimulated growth. To varying degrees, any one of those things would disqualify him.

Of course he would have evolved significantly over the ensuing decades, but I don't think that's what his fanboys/girls are pondering.

*That* JFK couldn't have so much as sniffed the Dem nomination today. Hell, Bill Clinton couldn't have, either. And yeah, Reagan probably couldn't have gotten the R nom with the nutty factions that have cropped up on that side, too.


Compared to Reagan, JFK did not have a fixed moral compass. For example, he only addressed civil rights when the issue confronted him and could ignore it no longer. IMO he became a proponent of the movement not so much because he felt it was the morally right position to take, but rather that it was the most politically viable. He was in danger of losing the left wing of his party. Additionally, he was not seen as a "defense hawk" during his presidency, to the contrary, on 11/22/63, there were numerous groups and propaganda that accused him of being soft on Communism. The candidate that would have been his opponent in 1964, Barry Goldwater, was much more of a hawk than Kennedy, and even pols with his own party, like Scoop Jackson, were more hawkish than him. He was only a hawk when you contrast him with Dems that were softer than he was, ie Adli Stevenson and Hubert Humphrey.

Kennedy liked playing both ends towards the middle, and I suspect that he would have maintained that MO throughout the rest of his political career had he survived. He had a knack for seeking the middle ground and almost certainly would have been sucked into Vietnam, at least initially. I do not agree with your premise that the Democratic party changed and that like Reagan, Kennedy would have switched party affiliation. Reagan changed relatively early in his political career. By 1963, Kennedy had a huge political machine that he would have had to leave behind.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7251
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby burrrton » Wed Oct 25, 2017 2:37 pm

Nothing much to disagree with there, except that maybe "defense *hawk*" was the wrong term- he was in favor of increasing defense spending, though.

And yeah, I know that may have been more appropriate at that time (I'm not going to go look up what levels he was advocating increasing from, etc).

I do not agree with your premise that the Democratic party changed and that like Reagan, Kennedy would have switched party affiliation.


I meant it more like if you looked back at JFK, he looked a lot more like a Republican (as we currently, or at least recently, knew them) than a Dem.

If I'd have considered it more deeply, I'm not sure I'd have agreed he'd have switched, either.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 2983
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby Aseahawkfan » Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:58 pm

RiverDog wrote:"If you look at things in a vacuum, then yes, JFK's politics of the early 60's are eerily similar to today's Republican party. But that assumes that Kennedy's personal views and philosophies would have remained unchanged"

Compared to Reagan, JFK did not have a fixed moral compass. For example, he only addressed civil rights when the issue confronted him and could ignore it no longer. IMO he became a proponent of the movement not so much because he felt it was the morally right position to take, but rather that it was the most politically viable. He was in danger of losing the left wing of his party. Additionally, he was not seen as a "defense hawk" during his presidency, to the contrary, on 11/22/63, there were numerous groups and propaganda that accused him of being soft on Communism. The candidate that would have been his opponent in 1964, Barry Goldwater, was much more of a hawk than Kennedy, and even pols with his own party, like Scoop Jackson, were more hawkish than him. He was only a hawk when you contrast him with Dems that were softer than he was, ie Adli Stevenson and Hubert Humphrey.

Kennedy liked playing both ends towards the middle, and I suspect that he would have maintained that MO throughout the rest of his political career had he survived. He had a knack for seeking the middle ground and almost certainly would have been sucked into Vietnam, at least initially. I do not agree with your premise that the Democratic party changed and that like Reagan, Kennedy would have switched party affiliation. Reagan changed relatively early in his political career. By 1963, Kennedy had a huge political machine that he would have had to leave behind.


Didn't they blame Kennedy for the failure in Cuba? I recall him being accused of undermining the operation in the Bay of Pigs to retain Democratic control in Cuba.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby RiverDog » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:16 pm

burrrton wrote:Nothing much to disagree with there, except that maybe "defense *hawk*" was the wrong term- he was in favor of increasing defense spending, though.

And yeah, I know that may have been more appropriate at that time (I'm not going to go look up what levels he was advocating increasing from, etc).

I meant it more like if you looked back at JFK, he looked a lot more like a Republican (as we currently, or at least recently, knew them) than a Dem.

If I'd have considered it more deeply, I'm not sure I'd have agreed he'd have switched, either.


There weren't ANY major politicians of the era that were against increasing defense spending. Do you know who the only politician of the 1950's was NOT in favor of increasing defense spending, or at least not increasing as much as others wanted? Dwight Eisenhower. The only person within his own cabinet that was FOR his proposed defense expenditures was his Treasury Secretary. Everyone else wanted enough missiles to kill the Soviets 100 times over. Think about that for a minute: The biggest dove of the 1950's was General Dwight Eisenhower. That should demonstrate what the mood of the country was like during the period between Korea and Vietnam.

JFK looked like a modern day Republican only if you removed all the other Democrats. If you kept them all in the picture, JFK is smack dab in the middle, between Scoop Jackson, Gore Sr., on the right, Hubert Humphrey, Stevenson on the left, so you would have to apply your logic to the majority of Dems in that era. JFK did not try to persuade people to his side, he followed the path of least resistance.

"Didn't they blame Kennedy for the failure in Cuba? I recall him being accused of undermining the operation in the Bay of Pigs to retain Democratic control in Cuba."

Kennedy himself accepted blame for the failure of the Bay of Pigs operation although it was an initiative that began under Ike. But the objective wasn't to retain "Democratic" control of the country. The goal was to overthrow the Castro regime, who had come to power in 1959 after overthrowing the pro-U.S. Batista government. Kennedy got cold feet, and instead of allowing a pre planned air strike to support a flailing effort, he called it off, afraid that he'd provoke the Soviets. He essentially left hundreds of CIA-organized Cubans out to dry. Many anti Castro Cubans never forgave him for that, which has been the source of several conspiracy theories involving JFK's assassination.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7251
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby burrrton » Thu Oct 26, 2017 5:02 am

There weren't ANY major politicians of the era that were against increasing defense spending.


I'm making no judgments about how he compared to other pols at the time (and I'm sure you know more about them than I do- I wasn't born yet), just about how his policies/attitudes compare to today.

You're simply explaining why, which is interesting, but it doesn't change my point.
Last edited by burrrton on Thu Oct 26, 2017 7:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 2983
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby RiverDog » Thu Oct 26, 2017 7:18 am

burrrton wrote:That doesn't change my point- I'm making no judgments about how he compared to other pols at the time (and I'm sure you know more about them than I do- I wasn't born yet), just about how his policies/attitudes compare to today.

This is rather uncontroversial.


And my point is that you could transplant nearly any major pol of the 50's or early 60's into contemporary politics and they would be viewed as a hawk, so noting that JFK would have been considered a hawk nowadays is pointless.

Since I was born in 1954, I have no relevant personal experiences regarding the politics of the time. Most of my knowledge is derived from the same place you and everyone else in this thread have. The only thing I can contribute from my own personal experience of the times is that it was a much different feeling back then.

Truman, Ike, Kennedy, and Johnson all had their political foundations formed by their experiences during WW2, of which the major lesson they took with them was that tyrants had to be opposed, to stop aggression early, never appease a bully. The pols of the 70's-9/11 had a much different foundation, one shaped by their experience in Vietnam, one that avoided boots on the ground, one that was much more cautious. They were completely different, and it would be like comparing apples to oranges to compare them with contemporary pols. It's like trying to compare Otto Graham to Tom Brady.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7251
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby burrrton » Thu Oct 26, 2017 7:21 am

And my point is that you could transplant nearly any major pol of the 50's or early 60's into contemporary politics and they would be viewed as a hawk, so noting that JFK would have been considered a hawk nowadays is pointless.


Pointless, but accurate.

"But *everybody* was a deficit hawk (or whatever)" doesn't change the fact that they were deficit hawks, right?
Last edited by burrrton on Thu Oct 26, 2017 7:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 2983
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby idhawkman » Thu Oct 26, 2017 7:22 am

RiverDog wrote:Do you know who the only politician of the 1950's was NOT in favor of increasing defense spending, or at least not increasing as much as others wanted? Dwight Eisenhower. The only person within his own cabinet that was FOR his proposed defense expenditures was his Treasury Secretary. Everyone else wanted enough missiles to kill the Soviets 100 times over. Think about that for a minute: The biggest dove of the 1950's was General Dwight Eisenhower. That should demonstrate what the mood of the country was like during the period between Korea and Vietnam.


Doesn't surprise me at all. He was always a bit soft - it was Patton who was the Hawk and Ike was constantly reeling him in and holding him back so that the "allies" could get some credit. This is well known. Ike was more of a diplomat than a soldier. I'm not saying that was a bad thing - its just the way it was.

JFK looked like a modern day Republican only if you removed all the other Democrats. If you kept them all in the picture, JFK is smack dab in the middle, between Scoop Jackson, Gore Sr., on the right, Hubert Humphrey, Stevenson on the left, so you would have to apply your logic to the majority of Dems in that era. JFK did not try to persuade people to his side, he followed the path of least resistance.
Kennedy would be without a party right now as he was fiscally a conservative and socially a democrat.

There's a lot of things about Kennedy that may or may not come out with the release of the documents this week. We have to wait and see.

"Didn't they blame Kennedy for the failure in Cuba? I recall him being accused of undermining the operation in the Bay of Pigs to retain Democratic control in Cuba."

Kennedy himself accepted blame for the failure of the Bay of Pigs operation although it was an initiative that began under Ike. But the objective wasn't to retain "Democratic" control of the country. The goal was to overthrow the Castro regime, who had come to power in 1959 after overthrowing the pro-U.S. Batista government. Kennedy got cold feet, and instead of allowing a pre planned air strike to support a flailing effort, he called it off, afraid that he'd provoke the Soviets. He essentially left hundreds of CIA-organized Cubans out to dry. Many anti Castro Cubans never forgave him for that, which has been the source of several conspiracy theories involving JFK's assassination.

Kennedy liked getting into insurgent actions but always ran when it became public or had potential to become public.

He backed the CIA insurgency of the Bay of Pigs and then as you pointed out, ran at the last minute. Cost a lot of lives.

He escalated the OSS (predecessor of Green Beret Special Ops) in Vietnam. He was also the President who gave the Green Beret to the SFOG's and as a presidential citation, we never "had to" remove our Berets when entering a building. Up until his awarding of the Beret, they were only worn in the field away from any eyes that would punish the soldiers wearing them for unauthorized uniform.

Kennedy, I believe wanted to resist the soviets/communists but he never quite got there.
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby idhawkman » Thu Oct 26, 2017 7:27 am

half the U.S. and growing
c_hawkbob wrote:
You mean 40% and dwindling.


Nope, I said what I meant and meant what I said.

After the recent revelations, it is going to stay that way until 2024. I am on the record that he will win reelection with 400+ electoral votes. Dems won't recover from these latests problems.

"Hilliary Clinton - the gift that keeps on giving."
- republican party and Trump
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby RiverDog » Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:36 am

burrrton wrote:But *everybody* was a deficit hawk (or whatever)" doesn't change the fact that they were deficit hawks, right?


There weren't any "deficit hawks" in the 50's and early 60's, Kennedy included, or at least they were not defined as such. Deficit spending wasn't that big of an issue back then. No one (except Ike) cared how much money it took to build thousands of nukes and always have one more bomb and one more missile than the Russians or how much money it took to beat them to the moon. It was only when LBJ took office and started his "Great Society" programs and his financing of the Vietnam War that the country began to worry about government spending. One of the first things Nixon did when he took office was to cut 3 planned missions to the moon, which is how those Saturn 5 rockets we can see in Florida and Texas became museum pieces.

So the fact that Kennedy was a deficit hawk, if that's what you want to call it, is irrelevant. He did not have very many tough budgetary choices to make, at least not compared to the dilemmas faced by modern day POTUS's.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7251
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby RiverDog » Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:58 am

idhawkman wrote:Kennedy would be without a party right now as he was fiscally a conservative and socially a democrat.

There's a lot of things about Kennedy that may or may not come out with the release of the documents this week. We have to wait and see.


As I pointed out earlier, you are assuming that Kennedy's politics would have remained static. None of the politicians that went through the 60's kept their original positions unaltered. Even JFK's own brother Robert, who originally supported intervention in Vietnam in the early 60's, by 1968 was against the war and embraced the anti war movement. Richard Nixon went from being a passionate anti communist in the 50's and early 60's by 1971 had become the first sitting President to visit a communist country, and he did it twice. JFK in particular was a man that did not have unassailable political virtues and would have changed his positions just like his brother did.

Don't hold your breath regarding the release of documents surrounding the JFK assassination. It will be about as interesting as reading the classified section of the local newspaper.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7251
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13223

Postby idhawkman » Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:36 am

RiverDog wrote:As I pointed out earlier, you are assuming that Kennedy's politics would have remained static.


You're right, we don't know where his politics "would have" gone. All we know is where he was. That's the only thing to base an answer on. I "could" equally make the assertion (as I did above) that he switched parties. He "could" have become more conservative after witnessing the effects of his tax cuts. There's all kinds of woulds, shoulds, and coulds but there are only one set of facts.
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Next

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest