• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who is left to vote TRUMP?

Mycroft said:
I said neither.

What I said is that people are much to complex to be pigeon-holed into those two categories. In other words, I don't think you'll find ANYBODY who exactly fits either box you've created for them.
Click to expand...

The two groups I mentioned created their OWN box for themselves.
 
justabubba said:
1972 mcgovern - nixon ?

but the best bumper stickers ever
"don't change dicks in the middle of a screw, vote for nixon in '72"
"you can't beat our dick"
Click to expand...

I would have been very comfortable with McGovern as president. Although he didn't stand a chance. He wanted an immediate pull out of all troops from South Vietnam. A peace dove candidate for sure. But McGovern was a WWII bomber pilot hero who flew 34 missions over German occupied Europe. That was the stark difference between the two.

Nixon on the other had offered South Vietnam its best hope. It turned out to be a failed hope. I don't think any of us GI's who were stationed in Vietnam at the time ever dreamed or thought Nixon would sell out the South Vietnamese the way he did by allowing 150,000 NVA troops to remain in the south. That should have been a no no. At least from a military point of view.

I don't know how old you are, but you should have known Nixon or experienced him when he was VP under Eisenhower. He was a completely different person or shall I say politician. I think he would have listen to the General whereas JFK didn't. The rest is history as they say. Who knows what would have happened if Nixon won in 1960, but history would have been quite different.
 
Perotista said:
I would have been very comfortable with McGovern as president. Although he didn't stand a chance. He wanted an immediate pull out of all troops from South Vietnam. A peace dove candidate for sure. But McGovern was a WWII bomber pilot hero who flew 34 missions over German occupied Europe. That was the stark difference between the two.

Nixon on the other had offered South Vietnam its best hope. It turned out to be a failed hope. I don't think any of us GI's who were stationed in Vietnam at the time ever dreamed or thought Nixon would sell out the South Vietnamese the way he did by allowing 150,000 NVA troops to remain in the south. That should have been a no no. At least from a military point of view.

I don't know how old you are, but you should have known Nixon or experienced him when he was VP under Eisenhower. He was a completely different person or shall I say politician. I think he would have listen to the General whereas JFK didn't. The rest is history as they say. Who knows what would have happened if Nixon won in 1960, but history would have been quite different.
Click to expand...

notice the early entries:
Timeline of U.S. Involvement in Vietnam Conflict
1950 First shipment of American military aid to the French colonial administration in Vietnam arrives
1955 President Eisenhower sends first military advisors to South Vietnam to train the South Vietnamese Army
1956 At French exit the US Military Assistance Advisor Group (MAAG) assumes full responsibility for training South Vietnamese forces
1959 First two Americans are killed during a Viet Minh guerillas strike at Bien Hoa
1961 President Kennedy sends 100 Special Forces troops to South Vietnam
1961 A U.S. aircraft carrier arrives in Saigon and Vice President Johnson visits Saigon
1962 U.S. Air Force begins using Agent Orange to defoliate trails used by Viet Cong forces
1963 U.S. military advisors and Special Forces increase to 21,000
1964 U.S. destroyers USS Maddox and USS Turner Joy are reported attacked by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin. U.S. Congress passes “Gulf of Tonkin” resolution authorizing President Johnson to wage all-out war against North Vietnam
1965 Retaliatory air-strikes begin against North Vietnam. Operation “Rolling Thunder” lasts three years. First U.S combat forces (2 Marine battalions) arrive in Danang, South Vietnam. Rapid escalation of force level ensues, which tops 200,000 by end of the year. U.S. Congress provides $2.4 billion for war effort with little dissent
...
Click to expand...
Timeline of U.S. Involvement in Vietnam Conflict | Maharg Press

Ike screwed up by providing US troops after reneging on the WWII era agreement for ho chi minh to preside over an independent nation of vietnam after japan was defeated

“If only Ho Chi Minh were on our side we could do something about the situation. But unfortunately he is the enemy.”
Click to expand...
~ Walter Robertson, assistant secretary of state for far eastern affairs, to C.L. Sulzberger of The New York Times in 1954

I am convinced that the French could not win the war because the internal political situation in Vietnam, weak and confused, badly weakened their military position. I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader rather than Chief of State Bao Dai.
Click to expand...
~ Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56 (1963), p. 372

it is said JFK was about to end our involvement in vietnam but a bullet ended that prospect before he could make it happen
 
haymarket said:
The two groups I mentioned created their OWN box for themselves.
Click to expand...

Ahhh...no.

Those "boxes" are only a contrivance of the left...most notably Hillary herself. The rest...including you...have rushed to fill those boxes with whomever you think belongs in them.
 
haymarket said:
I see only two groups still committed to pulling the lever and voting Trump. The first is the infamous basket of deplorable - racists, sexists, xenophobes, Islam haters, and those who simply are motivated by negative factors against government and what they love to call political correctness. These are the Hillary Haters who hear only the dog whistle of far right issues and their TV set gets only FOX News. They will still vote Trump.

The other is the single issue obsessed groups who see Trump as nominating Supreme Court justices who will favor their single issue. The two most obvious of these are the right to life anti-abortion crowd and the NRA gun lovers crowd. The will still vote Trump and pay no attention to this latest scandal involving the Access Hollywood tape.

So that gives Trump perhaps 30% of the vote.

So who else gives Trump any sizable vote? Where does that come from?
Click to expand...

Inbreds, oafs, morons, rapscallions, rakes, fools, idiots, bumpkins, hillbillies, mountebanks, droolers, knuckle draggers, etc. etc....
 
justabubba said:
notice the early entries:

Timeline of U.S. Involvement in Vietnam Conflict | Maharg Press

Ike screwed up by providing US troops after reneging on the WWII era agreement for ho chi minh to preside over an independent nation of vietnam after japan was defeated


~ Walter Robertson, assistant secretary of state for far eastern affairs, to C.L. Sulzberger of The New York Times in 1954


~ Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56 (1963), p. 372

it is said JFK was about to end our involvement in vietnam but a bullet ended that prospect before he could make it happen
Click to expand...

Actually it was Harry S. Truman who sent 65 U.S. troops to Saigon in 1950 and opened up MAAG-Indochina, Trump upped the troop strength to 128 in 1951. In 1954 IKE changed the name from MAAG-Indochina to MAAG-Vietnam and upped the troop strength to 342 on behest of Diem. U.S. military strength in Vietnam stood at 860 when IKE left office having succeeded in keeping us out of a ground war there.

JFK increased troop Strength to 3,305 in 1961 and upped it to 11,300 in 1962. But more important was JFK changing MAAG-Vietnam to MACV. It was all about command structure. A MAAG is usually commanded by either a full bird or a one star general and it is pushing the limits of it structure to have anything close to a 1,000 troops. It is just not feasible. By changing the structure to a four star position of a Military Assistance Command with basically the capability of an ARMY, remember at the time we had a 1st Army Ft. G. Meade, a 2nd Army Ft. Gillem GA., a 3rd Army Ft. McPherson GA, 4th Army Ft Sheridan, IL., 5th Army Ft. Sam Houston, 6th Army Presideo of San Franscio, 7th Army in Europe and the 8th in Korea.

MACV with its new structure could support and supply any number of troops. That doesn't sound like someone going to pull out any troops, in fact it states just the opposite. In 1963 there were 16,800 troops belonging to MACV and supporting units. As for JFK going to withdraw troops, that all came about in McNamara's book revising history. There is not a thing ever written prior to McNamara's book about JFK withdraw all the troops.

In fact JFK sanctioning the assassination of Diem made Vietnam ours.
 
Mycroft said:
Sorry, but I'm thinking your "two groups" contention is a bit simplistic. The thing is, it's not easy to put people in a box as you've done here. Take me, for example...

I'm not one of those people you characterize as "deplorable".

I'm not simply motivated by negative factors against government or political correctness.

While I will never vote for Hillary, I don't "hate" anybody.

I am deaf to dog whistles.

I don't own a TV.

I'm not a single issue person at all. I agree with Trump on some issues and don't agree with others.

I haven't yet read any details about this tape, but what little I know of it leads me to think liberals, at least, are a bit hypocritical for trying to make a big deal about it if any of them excused Bill for his actual activities all those years ago. On the other hand, any on the right who made a big deal about Bill way back then are being a bit less hypocritical if they make light of this tape because it's just talk. There is no action involved as far as I know. In any case, I am quite able to recognize the revelation of this tape for what it is...an October surprise. I'm also quite able to recognize the feigned outrage that is being expressed. Frankly, in light of the important issues facing our nation that will result from this election, I find this tape to be a minor issue.

So, haymarket, where would you say I fit in, since I still consider Trump to be the lesser of evils and will still vote for him?
Click to expand...

My guess is that you would never vote for a Democrat and party loyalty is clouding your judgment. Don't forget you will have to live with yourself after the vote is over.
 
iguanaman said:
My guess is that you would never vote for a Democrat and party loyalty is clouding your judgment. Don't forget you will have to live with yourself after the vote is over.
Click to expand...

1. You are correct that I would never vote for a Democrat. I have been very honest and open about that.

2. You are wrong about "party loyalty". I am loyal to no party.

3. Therefore, you are wrong about anything "clouding my judgment.

4. I am always aware of consequences of my decisions and I am quite experienced at living with such things.
 
Mycroft said:
Ahhh...no.

Those "boxes" are only a contrivance of the left...most notably Hillary herself. The rest...including you...have rushed to fill those boxes with whomever you think belongs in them.
Click to expand...

You seem to have real difficulty with reality. The tea party know nothings are real. The basket of deplorable are real. The single issue obsessed voters who only know their love of guns or right to life are real.
 
Lots of people are left to vote for Trump.

I suppose some are surprised by these revelations, but really, this is what people have been saying all along: we simply cannot believe that such an utter and open scumbag was made candidate of one of the two halves of the establishment. Maybe not every last clip or article was immediately available on news media, but Trump's character has been well known for a long time, particular to those who paid any attention to the intersection of business and politics in the NE.

I should at least be grateful that more people are finally smelling the coffee: Trump is worse than Hillary and isn't the person to challenge any "establishment". Maybe vote for Johnson if you must. I wouldn't. He's allright as a governor but I don't think he's right for the hot seat...but who knows. Either way. Trump is just bad. Bad in every direction. In every sense in which Hillary is bad, Trump is worse.



But it won't matter. Now we have a "grab them by the *****" statement, but the response will just be "but Bill", even though he's not running. It's not like the man bragged about cheating on one of his wives (2nd?) with some other person publicly, etc., and then turned around and attacked Hillary for defending her husband or anything. Or did he.



/end general rant



This election disgusts me.
 
His own VP:





Mr. Pence said in a statement he was “offended by the words and actions described by Donald Trump” in the video, and cast Mr. Trump’s second debate with Hillary Clinton, on Sunday, as an urgent moment to turn around the campaign. “I do not condone his remarks and cannot defend them,” Mr. Pence said, adding, “We pray for his family and look forward to the opportunity he has to show what is in his heart when he goes before the nation tomorrow night.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/09/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign.html?_r=0

So many active GOPers are turning against him. Why couldn't people run a more moderate fiscal conservative who doesn't care about the social stuff? That's the winning ticket, believe it or not. If you stand up there and identify real waste and specific ways to get rid of it, you'll net a lot of "liberals". You'll net independents. But get up there and start running your mouth about abortions or gay people, and poof! Get up there and pretend like the entire safety net is corrupt and say you want slashes left and right,....poof.







And sure, he apologized. Congratulations on it being the first time ever. But we all know that the off-camera politician is the real politician. (Go ahead, quote some Hillary things from off-camera at me. I'll be surprised if they stack up meaningfully next to Trump...)
 
Mr Person said:
we simply cannot believe that such an utter and open scumbag was made candidate of one of the two halves of the establishment.
Click to expand...

You see...this is why you don't understand...and probably never will...why Trump is a candidate, why he is so popular and has so much support and why the "normal" political tricks don't work when used against him.

Trump was NOT made a candidate by "one of the two halves of the establishment". He was made a candidate "in spite of one of the two halves of the establishment".
 
Casper said:
Trump stands for morals and values? How very embarrassing for you.
Click to expand...

And the Clinton's should embarrass your entire community ! :doh
 
Mycroft said:
You see...this is why you don't understand...and probably never will...why Trump is a candidate, why he is so popular and has so much support and why the "normal" political tricks don't work when used against him.

Trump was NOT made a candidate by "one of the two halves of the establishment". He was made a candidate "in spite of one of the two halves of the establishment".
Click to expand...

trump is only supported by low educated white men.
 
Mycroft said:
LOL!!

So...by implication, the establishment is only supported by high educated white men?
Click to expand...

and women.

and minorities

and the young


all the people Trump and the GOP ignore
 
Militant_Vegan_ said:
and women.

and minorities

and the young


all the people Trump and the GOP ignore
Click to expand...

Wait...what?

Ummm...do you actually know who is being referred to when someone speaks of the "establishment"?

I don't think you do.

Tell you what...figure that out and maybe we can talk.
 
Socrates1 said:
And the Clinton's should embarrass your entire community ! :doh
Click to expand...

Why, I am in a red State and I do not support her, oh, I see, simple minds, I get it..................
 
Casper said:
Why, I am in a red State and I do not support her, oh, I see, simple minds, I get it..................
Click to expand...

Simple minds are bigger in Texas . :lol:
 
Socrates1 said:
Simple minds are bigger in Texas . :lol:
Click to expand...

Correct, simple minds in Texas would be considered as geniuses compared to those in some areas of the Nation, especially DC.
 
Casper said:
Correct, simple minds in Texas would be considered as geniuses compared to those in some areas of the Nation, especially DC.
Click to expand...

You would know . :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom