2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

gosplan

What gets me about the whole thing, and I don't trust either candidate a bit, is that someone with no history whatsoever of service can make it so far.

The fact that Trump is only interested in the top job says a lot tbh.

I have little doubt that it was a publicity stunt which through chance, Trump's ego, and the Republican Party not having a clue for the last few years has now snowballed into what we're seeing today.

Amerika

gosplan wrote: »

Why bring that up unless you're looking to provoke.

It's a massively off topic tangent thrown in to start an argument because you weren't getting your fix IMO.

Pointless discussing anything if that's your motivation.

Not in the least bit... And don't assume. Best to know your facts before making comments like that. The Iraq war came up a couple times in the Commander-In-Chief forum last night. And it will be a constant topic in the lead up to the election.

Billy86

What's funny to me is that the Iraq War was a Republican war, which the current Republican candidate supported... and yet somehow it is seen as a stick to beat the Democratic candidate over the head with because they also supported it.

Any arguments that the Democratic candidate had more access to info at the time is ultimately irrelevant as one of the only things the Democratic candidate has shown consistency on is not listening to others and deciding for himself. As he already did when he supported the Iraq war.

Suryavarman

Gary Johnson's gaffe came up during Hillary Clinton's press conference earlier. All she could do was laugh. Which is appropriate since Johnson's candidacy should considered to be nothing more than a joke now.

https://twitter.com/RawStory/status/773885846978195456

I had supported Johnson as I believed that although he was a flawed candidate he was a good governor. After this it's clear that, just like Trump, he is too ignorant to be left near the White House.

KingBrian2

Billy86 wrote: »

What's funny to me is that the Iraq War was a Republican war, which the current Republican candidate supported... and yet somehow it is seen as a stick to beat the Democratic candidate over the head with because they also supported it.

Any arguments that the Democratic candidate had more access to info at the time is ultimately irrelevant as one of the only things the Democratic candidate has shown consistency on is not listening to others and deciding for himself. As he already did when he supported the Iraq war.

At the interview Donald Trump mentioned Esquire Magazine re Iraq so here it is. Read it all if you must, I will highlight the important line for the record to show he opposed the war.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a37230/donald-trump-esquire-cover-story-august-2004/

Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the county? C'mon. Two minutes after we leave, there's going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he'll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn't have.

What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!

Trump's exact words.

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

At the interview Donald Trump mentioned Esquire Magazine re Iraq so here it is. Read it all if you must, I will highlight the important line for the record to show he opposed the war.

And I will highlight the most important line to show that is actually not what it shows:

Editor's note: The following story was published in the August 2004 issue of Esquire. During the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed to have been against the Iraq War from the beginning, and he has cited this story as proof. The Iraq War began in March 2003, more than a year before this story ran, thus nullifying Trump's timeline. More details can be found here.

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

Seriously: who would have (honestly) known what Aleppo was if you were asked that on the street yesterday? Show of hands

The media was harsh on Johnson it is like asking them what is the second biggest city in France. That was difficult but a clever move on the part of the interviewer.

ancapailldorcha

Does Trump not realise that the internet exists and that everything he's said is in the public domain?

Regarding Johnson, I think we've just had a perfect example of why modern politicians feel the need to give vague, anodyne answers to difficult questions. Had Trump or Clinton said they didn't know what Aleppo was there'd be a field day and it would be brought up again and again.

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

And I will highlight the most important line to show that is actually not what it shows:

You will have to accept Overheal that the last couple of administrations were pro intervention only Ron Paul on the floor of the senate took a principled stand against the wars. Donald Trump was not even a politician at that time any all across America and the world the media was focusing on how Saddam needed to be removed from power and it was in the interests of the American public to support troops by having more wars in foreign lands. Trump would by no means be in the minority.

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You will have to accept Overheal that the last couple of administrations were pro intervention only Ron Paul on the floor of the senate took a principled stand against the wars. Donald Trump was not even a politician at that time any all across America and the world the media was focusing on how Saddam needed to be removed from power and it was in the interests of the American public to support troops by having more wars in foreign lands. Trump would by no means be in the minority.

Not that - any of that - has anything to do with rebuking the claim that Trump was always against the war..



Let's remind viewers that there was one of many turning points in the 2008 campaign - aside from VP picks, Obama ran on a platform of winding down the Iraq and Afghan wars (and he did this to a large degree). Had he said "then we're invading Syria! And Libya!" that support he got for positioning himself as against those wars would have fizzled. In contrast, McCain when asked about how long we should stay in Iraq, he responded by saying "maybe 100 years" among other things. I don't think you could argue though that Obama is a pro-interventionalist, just to say that he wasn't so against it he ignored the joint chiefs and looked the other way when Libya and Syria respectively went to hell, in part because of events we helped to cook.

The real meat of the matter and what I assume you're trying to insinuate, "Trump is against war!" is he though?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/13/trumps_updated_isis_plan_bomb_the_****_out_of_them_send_exxon_in_to_rebuild.html

Spoiler: he is not.

Amerika

Yes ancapailldorcha, there is an internet...



Washington Post, March 25, 2003:
Donald Trump, with Amazonian beauty Melania Knauss at his side, pronounces on the war and the stock market: “If they keep fighting it the way they did today, they’re going to have a real problem.”

Looking as pensive as a “Nightline” talking head, the Donald concludes, “The war’s a mess,” before sweeping off into the crowd.




MSNBC’s “Scarborough Country,” Sept. 11, 2003:
Trump… It wasn’t a mistake to fight terrorism and fight it hard, and I guess maybe if I had to do it, I would have fought terrorism but not necessarily Iraq.

Overheal

Speaking of #AleppoGate, I've been prompted to recall that 30% of Republican voters supported bombing Agrabah

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/18/republican-voters-bomb-agrabah-disney-aladdin-donald-trump

And that Donald Trump once suggested there were 12 articles of the US Constitution.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/18/republican-voters-bomb-agrabah-disney-aladdin-donald-trump

Not to mention the Two Corinthians thing.

http://mashable.com/2016/01/18/donald-trump-2-corinthians/#P8Oz0YlW0gq4

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

Not that - any of that - has anything to do with rebuking the claim that Trump was always against the war..



Let's remind viewers that there was one of many turning points in the 2008 campaign - aside from VP picks, Obama ran on a platform of winding down the Iraq and Afghan wars (and he did this to a large degree). Had he said "then we're invading Syria! And Libya!" that support he got for positioning himself as against those wars would have fizzled. In contrast, McCain when asked about how long we should stay in Iraq, he responded by saying "maybe 100 years" among other things. I don't think you could argue though that Obama is a pro-interventionalist, just to say that he wasn't so against it he ignored the joint chiefs and looked the other way when Libya and Syria respectively went to hell, in part because of events we helped to cook.

The real meat of the matter and what I assume you're trying to insinuate, "Trump is against war!" is he though?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/13/trumps_updated_isis_plan_bomb_the_****_out_of_them_send_exxon_in_to_rebuild.html

Spoiler: he is not.

That's precisely my point. Hillary was responsible for pushing President Obama along a pro interventionist approach. They have caused more chaos this way than those advocating for an end to war. President Obama did not interfere in Pakistan when they took out Osama.

By comparison the bombing of Libya which was opposed by Angela Merkel & Vladimir Putin has brought them nothing but trouble with bad rep & and a growing refugee crisis. This is what happens when you support indiscriminate attacks on Nations.

Billy86

KingBrian2 wrote: »

That's precisely my point. Hillary was responsible for pushing President Obama along a pro interventionist approach. They have caused more chaos this way than those advocating for an end to war. President Obama did not interfere in Pakistan when they took out Osama.

By comparison the bombing of Libya which was opposed by Angela Merkel & Vladimir Putin has brought them nothing but trouble with bad rep & and a growing refugee crisis. This is what happens when you support indiscriminate attacks on Nations.

Ah, Libya! Also supported by Trump, who never listens to anyone but Trump.

Suryavarman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The media was harsh on Johnson it is like asking them what is the second biggest city in France. That was difficult but a clever move on the part of the interviewer.

Except it isn't like that at all because Marseille isn't the epicentre of a refugee crisis nor is there a very bloody battle taking place in Marseille nor is France going to be the biggest foreign policy issue the next commander-in-chief will have to deal with, the Syrian Conflict is.

That people don't realise the magnitude of the gaffe Gary Johnson just made is incredible.

Amerika

It makes one wonder that if Hillary has all these wonderful plans to deal with terrorism, Syria, etc why doesn’t she pick up the phone to Obama and help him with what to do. I know he has a phone and a pen. He told us so. Bottom line is Obama (and Hillary as his extension and chosen successor) and the Democrats have been at the helm for the last 8 years. There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that her presidency will be merely a continuation of what has been going on for the last 8 years. Welcome to the administration of same old, same old. Corruption, lies, abuse and misuse of power, job killing policies, over-regulation, stagnant economy and international ineffectiveness. Heaven help us.

Overheal

I have a phone and a pen. What's my prize?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

I have a phone and a pen. What's my prize?

If it's an ObamaPhone, then free cheese.

Akrasia

Amerika wrote: »

It makes one wonder that if Hillary has all these wonderful plans to deal with terrorism, Syria, etc why doesn’t she pick up the phone to Obama and help him with what to do. I know he has a phone and a pen. He told us so. Bottom line is Obama (and Hillary as his extension and chosen successor) and the Democrats have been at the helm for the last 8 years. There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that her presidency will be merely a continuation of what has been going on for the last 8 years. Welcome to the administration of same old, same old. Corruption, lies, abuse and misuse of power, job killing policies, over-regulation, stagnant economy and international ineffectiveness. Heaven help us.

Hillary is same old... What is Trump.

....

.....

......

Seriously. What policies will Trump implement.

You are literally voting for the mystery box.

Trump says he has a plan, but says it's a secret. Then he says he wants to get all the generals to tell him their plans and he'll then decide which is the best plan.

This is Joseph Smith levels of blatant con artistry

What would Trump have to do or say before you agree that he's a fraud? Give me any answer what so ever, and there's a good chance he's already done or said it.

Billy86

Akrasia wrote: »

What would Trump have to do or say before you agree that he's a fraud?

For the vast, vast majority of his fans the answer is if he were to remove the (R) from beside his name. No more, no less, and nothing else.

AbusesToilets

Suryavarman wrote: »

Gary Johnson's gaffe came up during Hillary Clinton's press conference earlier. All she could do was laugh. Which is appropriate since Johnson's candidacy should considered to be nothing more than a joke now.

https://twitter.com/RawStory/status/773885846978195456

I had supported Johnson as I believed that although he was a flawed candidate he was a good governor. After this it's clear that, just like Trump, he is too ignorant to be left near the White House.

Of course, this is the Former Secretary of State who claimed extensive ignorance when it came to classified materials and their correct usage.

What a lark.

Akrasia

Billy86 wrote: »

For the vast, vast majority of his fans the answer is if he were to remove the (R) from beside his name. No more, no less, and nothing else.

You're depressingly right to a certain extent. Clinton panders way more to god, but republican religious voters prefer trump even though he is blatantly self worshiping and therefore a blasphemer.

But the D or R distinction isn't enough, because the swing voters are I

I worry that this is going to come down, like Brexit, to a battle for the least informed, least interested, reactionary voters, and on this card, Trump can win.

The NBC town hall showed how Trump can eat up time by saying nothing, but Clinton can get hammered with difficult questions. I think Clinton is in big trouble when the face to face debates happen.

Trump doesn't have to become likable, he just needs to make clinton unlikable. Then his voters will turn up, while clintons voters will stay at home.

Rjd2

Akrasia wrote: »

You're depressingly right to a certain extent. Clinton panders way more to god, but republican religious voters prefer trump even though he is blatantly self worshiping and therefore a blasphemer.

But the D or R distinction isn't enough, because the swing voters are I

I worry that this is going to come down, like Brexit, to a battle for the least informed, least interested, reactionary voters, and on this card, Trump can win.

The NBC town hall showed how Trump can eat up time by saying nothing, but Clinton can get hammered with difficult questions. I think Clinton is in big trouble when the face to face debates happen.

Trump doesn't have to become likable, he just needs to make clinton unlikable. Then his voters will turn up, while clintons voters will stay at home.

I think as long as their is no explosive Wiki leaks, Hilary should win the elections easily enough. The key will be to avoid all the Trump insults and beat him up on policies which should be easy enough.

Yep many Trump fans won't care, but the undecideds won't be impressed whatsoever if he exposes himself as clueless on the main issues.

Its going to be very hard for Trump to escape 3 one on one debates without making an absolute idiot of himself.

On Brexit, their was many reactionary idiots who voted to leave, but plenty of uninformed peeps who voted to remain also, but that is a debate for another thread.:D

Akrasia

Rjd2 wrote: »

I think as long as their is no explosive Wiki leaks, Hilary should win the elections easily enough. The key will be to avoid all the Trump insults and beat him up on policies which should be easy enough.

Yep many Trump fans won't care, but the undecideds won't be impressed whatsoever if he exposes himself as clueless on the main issues.

Its going to be very hard for Trump to escape 3 one on one debates without making an absolute idiot of himself.

On Brexit, their was many reactionary idiots who voted to leave, but plenty of uninformed peeps who voted to remain also, but that is a debate for another thread.:D

Thats all logically sound, but, anyone who's 'undecided' at this point in the cycle has demonstrated an enormous lack interest in politics, in which case, they're wildcards and could go any way, or they've got a huge lack of judgement skills

The fact that they're even considering Trump shows that either they really really hate Hillary, or they actually believe in the Trump narrative.


If they hate hillary, all Trump has to do is push a few buttons and he's on board with them. If they believe Trump, then Hillary is the one who needs to dismantle his image, and she's failing miserably at doing that so far

K-9

Trump wants to increase the military and go after ISIS. I'm not seeing how that is better than Hillary.

AbusesToilets

K-9 wrote: »

Trump wants to increase the military and go after ISIS. I'm not seeing how that is better than Hillary.

The US military is in drastic need of proper investment. It's probably in its weakest state in decades, possibly even worse than post-Vietnam or during the darkest years of Clinton.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The US military is in drastic need of proper investment. It's probably in its weakest state in decades, possibly even worse than post-Vietnam or during the darkest years of Clinton.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8227820

"The U.S. military receives more generous funding than the rest of the 10 largest militaries in the world combined (China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, U.K., France, Japan, India, Germany & South Korea). And yet, despite the chaos and violence of the past 15 years, the Republican candidates seem oblivious to the dangers of one country wielding such massive and disproportionate military power."

K-9

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The US military is in drastic need of proper investment. It's probably in its weakest state in decades, possibly even worse than post-Vietnam or during the darkest years of Clinton.

That maybe so, but he's going after ISIS. Maybe he'll go after them better but nobody knows how he'll do it. His supporters just think he'll do it better than Hillary. They are just waiting for Donald to tell them how and then they'll just get behind it.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8227820

"The U.S. military receives more generous funding than the rest of the 10 largest militaries in the world combined (China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, U.K., France, Japan, India, Germany & South Korea). And yet, despite the chaos and violence of the past 15 years, the Republican candidates seem oblivious to the dangers of one country wielding such massive and disproportionate military power."

Yes, and it is functionally weaker than it has been in decades. Dangerously so, given the role that it is called upon to fulfill globally.

Calina

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Yes, and it is functionally weaker than it has been in decades. Dangerously so, given the role that it is called upon to fulfill globally.

The Republicans did march it into a vanity war though. In business that would be called a misapplication of resources.

That being said, I'd argue that one of the biggest problems the US has to address is the increasingly militaristic nature of its own police.

Akrasia

K-9 wrote: »

That maybe so, but he's going after ISIS. Maybe he'll go after them better but nobody knows how he'll do it. His supporters just think he'll do it better than Hillary. They are just waiting for Donald to tell them how and then they'll just get behind it.

Trump said many times that the biggest mistake in Iraq was that the US didn't take the Oil. He even said the phrase 'To the victors go the spoils' in the NBC Town Hall the other night

His strategy to combat ISIS is probably to retake the oil fields in Iraq and Syria (actually, he doesn't have any strategy, he's just winging it)

He would be a NEO CONs wet dream. All they need to do is have a word in his ear to pursuade him that stealing the economic resources of other nations will both fight terrorism while 'making america great again' and off he goes.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Yes, and it is functionally weaker than it has been in decades. Dangerously so, given the role that it is called upon to fulfill globally.

Can you give evidence of your claim as you claim. The ISA is involved in a number of wars on a number of fronts!

Amerika

Amerika wrote: »

You know Barack Obama, as a one term US Senator running for president had roughly the same knowledge of world affairs as did Palin when she ran for only VP. I guess details only matter when it helps the side of the political aisle you're sitting on.

So the only way to have knowledge of world affairs is to be in politics for longer than Obama was before getting elected? Rubbish.

glued

What's dangerous here is that the mainstream media seem to be highlighting Trumps misgivings much more than Hilary's terrible record as a politician.

The US have a choice between two awful candidates. One has no idea what she's doing and has made mistake after mistake in her political career and the other is a guy who has proven he has no idea what he's doing.

Quin_Dub

Akrasia wrote: »

You're depressingly right to a certain extent. Clinton panders way more to god, but republican religious voters prefer trump even though he is blatantly self worshiping and therefore a blasphemer.

But the D or R distinction isn't enough, because the swing voters are I

I worry that this is going to come down, like Brexit, to a battle for the least informed, least interested, reactionary voters, and on this card, Trump can win.

The NBC town hall showed how Trump can eat up time by saying nothing, but Clinton can get hammered with difficult questions. I think Clinton is in big trouble when the face to face debates happen.

Trump doesn't have to become likable, he just needs to make clinton unlikable. Then his voters will turn up, while clintons voters will stay at home.

It will be interesting to see if that Townhall has any impact on Polling numbers..

If anything it showed a total lack of preparation from Trump - He was utterly unable to answer any question with anything that made sense..

Here's an example where both Trump and Clinton were asked basically the same question - "What are you going to do about Veterans Mental Health/Sucide rates.

Clinton Response wrote:

Lauer: It’s an alarming, alarming story. The population of veterans has a rate of suicide far above the general population.

Clinton: Twenty—20 suicides a day.

Lauer: What are you going to do to stop it?

Clinton: Well, this month is Suicide Prevention Awareness Month. And I’ve spent a lot of time with family members, survivors, who’ve lost a loved one after he or she came home, sometimes suffering from PTSD or TBI or sexual assault, being handed bags of opioids, not being given an appropriate treatment to help that particular person, which is something, to go back to the sergeant’s question, we have to change.
So I rolled out my mental health agenda last week, and I have a whole section devoted to veterans’ mental health. And we’ve got to remove the stigma. We’ve got to help people currently serving not to feel that if they report their sense of unease, their depression, that somehow it’s going to be a mark against them.
We have to do more about addiction, not only drugs, but also alcohol. So I have put forth a really robust agenda, working with a lot of the VSOs and other groups, like TAPS, who have been thinking about this and trying to figure out what we’re going to do to help our veterans re-enter civilian life and live full, productive lives.

Trump Response wrote:

Audience question: I like what you say about supporting veterans and how they’re important. But I haven’t heard what the actual plans are to continue that support beyond words. How do you translate those words to action after you take office?

Trump: Well, I love that question, because I’ve been very close to the vets. You see the relationship I have with the vets just by looking at the polls. In fact, today a poll came out. And my relationship has been very good.

To be honest Lauer should never get a serious interview gig again for letting him away with utter tripe like that, but regardless of that and regardless of whether you agree/disagree with the Clinton reply at least it was a reply.

Trumps answer was essentially "Thanks for the question , now I'm going to completely ignore it and tell you how great I think I am"

If someone like Anderson Cooper chases him down on that kind of reply during the Presidential debates he could and should be in real trouble.

* Quotes are from this article

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that her presidency will be merely a continuation of what has been going on for the last 8 years.

Well, there will be one subtle shift: the GOP will be refusing to co-operate in any way with a female president, instead of refusing to co-operate in any way with a black president. I guess the outcome will be largely similar.

Akrasia wrote: »

Trump says he has a plan, but says it's a secret. Then he says he wants to get all the generals to tell him their plans and he'll then decide which is the best plan.

Are those the generals he's said he plans to replace within his first 30 days in office?

Suryavarman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Of course, this is the Former Secretary of State who claimed extensive ignorance when it came to classified materials and their correct usage.

What a lark.

You've been shown to be completely wrong on this matter only a couple of pages ago on this thread. Stop making a fool out of yourself.

Chips Lovell

beach_walker wrote: »

Oh dear, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson "What is Aleppo?"

Looks like it's not just Gary Johnson. New York Times is having a bit of trouble with Aleppo too.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

You've been shown to be completely wrong on this matter only a couple of pages ago on this thread. Stop making a fool out of yourself.

Sorry, but it's not AbusesToilets who is the fool on the hill, here.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/02/fbi-releases-clinton-investigation-documents.html

AbusesToilets

Suryavarman wrote: »

You've been shown to be completely wrong on this matter only a couple of pages ago on this thread. Stop making a fool out of yourself.

Did Clinton and her staff transmit classified materials over an unsecured network?

Did Clinton allow people without clearances access to said classified materials?

Please, do go on telling me how completely wrong I am.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Can you give evidence of your claim as you claim. The ISA is involved in a number of wars on a number of fronts!

By saying ISA, are you referring to the Intelligence unit or were you referring to the NSA?

As to the evidence for the US being functionally weaker.

The number of combat brigades in the US is at its lowest since around WW1 time frame (force structure being somewhat different between the two periods notwithstanding).

http://www.stripes.com/news/us-army-scores-weak-in-think-tank-s-review-of-military-power-1.375768

The US Navy is at its lowest numbers in decades, and it is dealing with major issues in some of its most expensive procurement programs, such as the LCS and America class carriers.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/uss-gerald-r-ford-aircraft-carrier-delay/

The US Air Force is facing a serious shortage of pilots, in addition to budgetary shortfalls and aging airframes. The F-35 has yet to meet operational requirements, while sucking up a huge portion their budget.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/08/10/the-air-force-fighter-pilot-shortage-is-already-a-crisis-and-it-could-soon-get-even-worse/

All this is in addition to overall wear and tear experienced by the military after 15+ years of continuous combat, both on hardware and personnel. There have been continued cuts to training budgets due to Sequestration, which has a major impact on troop readiness. Meanwhile the military is actively targeting service members for separation as a money saving measure.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

By saying ISA, are you referring to the Intelligence unit or were you referring to the NSA?

As to the evidence for the US being functionally weaker.

The number of combat brigades in the US is at its lowest since around WW1 time frame (force structure being somewhat different between the two periods notwithstanding).

http://www.stripes.com/news/us-army-scores-weak-in-think-tank-s-review-of-military-power-1.375768

The US Navy is at its lowest numbers in decades, and it is dealing with major issues in some of its most expensive procurement programs, such as the LCS and America class carriers.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/uss-gerald-r-ford-aircraft-carrier-delay/

The US Air Force is facing a serious shortage of pilots, in addition to budgetary shortfalls and aging airframes. The F-35 has yet to meet operational requirements, while sucking up a huge portion their budget.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/08/10/the-air-force-fighter-pilot-shortage-is-already-a-crisis-and-it-could-soon-get-even-worse/

All this is in addition to overall wear and tear experienced by the military after 15+ years of continuous combat, both on hardware and personnel. There have been continued cuts to training budgets due to Sequestration, which has a major impact on troop readiness. Meanwhile the military is actively targeting service members for separation as a money saving measure.

ISA was a typo. So brigade strength was lower in WWII than WWI?

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

ISA was a typo. So brigade strength was lower in WWII than WWI?

Not sure what you are asking? WW2 would have seen the US Army at its largest. Force structure was also different than it was during WW1.

The US army has realigned its force structure of late, focusing more on Brigade level packages. Those Brigades being then organised under Divisions, Corps etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_United_States_Army

There are significantly less combat units active now than there has been for decades.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Not sure what you are asking? WW2 would have seen the US Army at its largest. Force structure was also different than it was during WW1.

The US army has realigned its force structure of late, focusing more on Brigade level packages. Those Brigades being then organised under Divisions, Corps etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_United_States_Army

There are significantly less combat units active now than there has been for decades.

You stated "The number of combat brigades in the US is at its lowest since around WW1" ergo the strength in WWIII must have been lower! But now you saying "WW2 would have seen the US Army at its largest."

Both statements can not be correct. You can understand why I take anything you say with a large pinch of salt.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

You stated "The number of combat brigades in the US is at its lowest since around WW1" ergo the strength in WWIII must have been lower! But now you saying "WW2 would have seen the US Army at its largest."

Both statements can not be correct. You can understand why I take anything you say with a large pinch of salt.

What on earth are you on about. The US Army was very small prior to WW1. It then ramped up for the war. Similar activity occurred again for WW2, after which the overall strength of the military was maintained at higher levels than previously due to their post war commitments and the Cold War.

What part of my stating that current US Army strength is at its lowest since around WW1 is inaccurate or hard to understand? Did you fail to read the link I posted, or gave it a Google yourself?

I understand that you difficulty dealing with facts placed before you, you can take that with whatever quantity of seasoning you like.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

What on earth are you on about. The US Army was very small prior to WW1. It then ramped up for the war. Similar activity occurred again for WW2, after which the overall strength of the military was maintained at higher levels than previously due to their post war commitments and the Cold War.

What part of my stating that current US Army strength is at its lowest since around WW1 is inaccurate or hard to understand? Did you fail to read the link I posted, or gave it a Google yourself?

I understand that you difficulty dealing with facts placed before you, you can take that with whatever quantity of seasoning you like.

I accept I misunderstood.

Billy86

glued wrote: »

What's dangerous here is that the mainstream media seem to be highlighting Trumps misgivings much more than Hilary's terrible record as a politician.

The US have a choice between two awful candidates. One has no idea what she's doing and has made mistake after mistake in her political career and the other is a guy who has proven he has no idea what he's doing.

That's not really true though, for example I haven't heard much at all about his multiple fraud cases or the allegations of child molestation, but I have heard an awful lot about emails. They report when some says stupid sh*t. They did the same for Gary Johnson just yesterday on Aleppo, for example. The thing is, with Trump it's as good as a guarantee to happen weekly if not more often.

EDIT: Wrong thread and don't want to sound like I'm backseat modding, just a heads up that the mods have asked to redirect media discussion here - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057639762

Black Swan

Donald Trump, who has frequently praised (former KGB and Lubyanka prison torture fame) Vladimir Putin as a strong leader, now challenges US foreign policies on pro-Kremlin, Russian state owned TV broadcast in Russian and English. It appears that the Trump-Putin bromance knows no bounds. And when Trump tries to claim he will be a Reagan-like president, Trump must have forgotten to read that part of US history called the Cold War, where USA and USSR were bitter enemies, and Reagan challenged the USSR in an arms race that doubled the federal deficit, and came close to war.

A vote for Trump is a vote for Putin.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Donald Trump, who has frequently praised (former KGB and Lubyanka prison torture fame) Vladimir Putin as a strong leader, now challenges US foreign policies on pro-Kremlin, Russian state owned TV broadcast in Russian and English. It appears that the Trump-Putin bromance knows no bounds. And when Trump tries to claim he will be a Reagan-like president, Trump must have forgotten to read that part of US history called the Cold War, where USA and USSR were bitter enemies, and Reagan challenged the USSR in an arms race that doubled the federal deficit, and came close to war.

A vote for Trump is a vote for Putin.

You seemed to have forgotten the 'Reset Button.'

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I accept I misunderstood.

No worries, sorry if I was a touch abrasive.