WWTBAM Bored

OK, so its not a new topic.

But I really have this feeling, reading interviews w/ people who voted for Trump.

"We just wanted you to know we were out there."

Yeah, Zalligators & Zizzlys are out there too (see other thread), but we (We the Rest of the People) don't want to bump into them.

And we have no British Navy (or whoever did the reversal on McBoatface) to set this thing aright.

I've no idea what you are trying to say.

But Hillary lost to probably the worst candidate the Republican party, or apparently 2nd worst any party, has ever put on the ticket for President.

Think about that and let it sink in.

BiT says:

I've no idea what you are trying to say.

see (you have to be alone in the multiverse for not having heard of this, but whatever):

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/world ... .html?_r=0

Re: Zalligators & Zizzlys:

see thread on Lynn Hurley's game on this board


Re: people who voted for Trump who really didn't want him to win

see: all over the internet, radio talk shows, etc. Buyer's remorse, sorta

BackInTex wrote:I've no idea what you are trying to say.

But Hillary lost to probably the worst candidate the Republican party, or apparently 2nd worst any party, has ever put on the ticket for President.

Think about that and let it sink in.

Hillary would not have tweeted out that she wants to “greatly strengthen and expand” America’s nuclear arsenal, on the grounds that it would make the world “come to its senses” on reducing the number of nuclear weapons it produces.

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:I've no idea what you are trying to say.

But Hillary lost to probably the worst candidate the Republican party, or apparently 2nd worst any party, has ever put on the ticket for President.

Think about that and let it sink in.

Hillary would not have tweeted out that she wants to “greatly strengthen and expand” America’s nuclear arsenal, on the grounds that it would make the world “come to its senses” on reducing the number of nuclear weapons it produces.

Exactly.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:I've no idea what you are trying to say.

But Hillary lost to probably the worst candidate the Republican party, or apparently 2nd worst any party, has ever put on the ticket for President.

Think about that and let it sink in.

Hillary would not have tweeted out that she wants to “greatly strengthen and expand” America’s nuclear arsenal, on the grounds that it would make the world “come to its senses” on reducing the number of nuclear weapons it produces.

Exactly.

She wouldn't have said it because it's an incredibly stupid thing to say.

I fear it's becoming increasingly likely that we are going to see the answer to Fermi's Paradox in our lifetime.

Jeemie wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: Hillary would not have tweeted out that she wants to “greatly strengthen and expand” America’s nuclear arsenal, on the grounds that it would make the world “come to its senses” on reducing the number of nuclear weapons it produces.

Exactly.

She wouldn't have said it because it's an incredibly stupid thing to say.

That is debatable but what isn't is that it is not as stupid as calling 32 million voters deplorables, for someone who wished to get elected.

BackInTex wrote:That is debatable but what isn't is that it is not as stupid as calling 32 million voters deplorables, for someone who wished to get elected.

Right...because those comments by hillary are on a par with making cavalier comments about weapons that can end civilization as we know it...weapons over which you are about to assume control.

BTW, after Trump's team went full damage control and explained that what Trump REALLY meant is he was talking about the need to control proliferation via modernization and "peace through strength", and didn't really mean he wanted to enter into a new arms race, Trump spoke to Mika Brzezinski and said this:

Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.

I hope Trump's team will soon explain to us what Trump "really meant" by that statement.

Jeemie wrote:BTW, after Trump's team went full damage control and explained that what Trump REALLY meant is he was talking about the need to control proliferation via modernization and "peace through strength", and didn't really mean he wanted to enter into a new arms race, Trump spoke to Mika Brzezinski and said this:

Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.

I hope Trump's team will soon explain to us what Trump "really meant" by that statement.

I'm sorry the world doesn't work the way you want. It doesn't work the way I want either. We can "win" or we can "lose". There are no "ties". Again, not the way the world works. So if you play to "win" you have to do and say things that work in the world as it is, the way the world works, not the way you want it to.

Diplomacy did not break the Soviet Union.

BackInTex wrote:

Jeemie wrote:BTW, after Trump's team went full damage control and explained that what Trump REALLY meant is he was talking about the need to control proliferation via modernization and "peace through strength", and didn't really mean he wanted to enter into a new arms race, Trump spoke to Mika Brzezinski and said this:

Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.

I hope Trump's team will soon explain to us what Trump "really meant" by that statement.

I'm sorry the world doesn't work the way you want. It doesn't work the way I want either. We can "win" or we can "lose". There are no "ties". Again, not the way the world works. So if you play to "win" you have to do and say things that work in the world as it is, the way the world works, not the way you want it to.

Diplomacy did not break the Soviet Union.

I'd call mutually assured destruction a "tie".

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:I've no idea what you are trying to say.

But Hillary lost to probably the worst candidate the Republican party, or apparently 2nd worst any party, has ever put on the ticket for President.

Think about that and let it sink in.

Hillary would not have tweeted out that she wants to “greatly strengthen and expand” America’s nuclear arsenal, on the grounds that it would make the world “come to its senses” on reducing the number of nuclear weapons it produces.

The biggest problem with Trump's foreign policy pronouncements is that he doesn't seem to have a coherent strategy. He pretty much says whatever he feels like on a particular day. It makes it difficult for either allies or enemies to know how to react to him. And he's going to get put to the test very quickly. I expect the Chinese or his good buddy Putin to see jost how far they can go with him. And we'll learn fairly quickly just what sort of capabilities ISIS actually has as well.

silverscreenselect wrote: And we'll learn fairly quickly just what sort of capabilities ISIS actually has as well.

And they will find out our capabilities, too. And that will be the last we hear about them.

28 years of wimps in the White House have given those bastards a false bravado.

I hope someone tells Trump that a nuclear war would be bad for the hotel business.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: And we'll learn fairly quickly just what sort of capabilities ISIS actually has as well.

And they will find out our capabilities, too. And that will be the last we hear about them.

28 years of wimps in the White House have given those bastards a false bravado.

You do understand that's exactly what they want, a massive retaliation by the U.S. against what would be an overwhelming number of innocent civilians as opposed to however many ISIS members are there. Or the other likely possibility with Trump is that he'll just send out a bunch of angry tweets and bluster a lot, like he always does.These people are quite willing to die for what they believe in. And that may well be the last we hear of ISIS, but in another year or two we'll be hearing from another group that gets recruited as a result of what we might do to ISIS.

Of course, this might just be the prelude to the solution Republicans always come up with to boost the economy. Cut taxes for the rich, claim there's some type of global crisis and spend insane amounts of money on new weapons systems.

silverscreenselect wrote:. . .

Of course, this might just be the prelude to the solution Republicans always come up with to boost the economy. Cut taxes for the rich, claim there's some type of global crisis and spend insane amounts of money on new weapons systems.

It works, and they'll keep doing it as long as it keeps working.

silverscreenselect wrote:...prelude to the solution Republicans always come up with to boost the economy. Cut taxes for the rich, claim there's some type of global crisis and spend insane amounts of money on new weapons systems.

As opposed to the Democrats who tax the rich, claim there some sort of global (warming) crisis and spend insane amount of money on new solar power systems?

Got it.

elwoodblues wrote:I hope someone tells Trump that a nuclear war would be bad for the hotel business.

No need. He knows it. He's a smart man. Keep that in mind.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: And we'll learn fairly quickly just what sort of capabilities ISIS actually has as well.

And they will find out our capabilities, too. And that will be the last we hear about them.

28 years of wimps in the White House have given those bastards a false bravado.

How much military experience do you have? How much experience facing guerilla warfare in mountainous terrain?

The Soviet Union in the 1980s couldn't subdue Afghanistan and they didn't have the logistical issues we will have or any need to maintain popular support (or at least tolerance) for the war. And you may remember that Vietnam didn't exactly end in victory for U.S. armed forces.

I'm not willing to send my son overseas to die in those wars. There's no objective over there that's worth it. I'll man barricades to make sure no politician gets the opportunity to try. --Bob

SportsFan68 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:. . .

Of course, this might just be the prelude to the solution Republicans always come up with to boost the economy. Cut taxes for the rich, claim there's some type of global crisis and spend insane amounts of money on new weapons systems.

It works, and they'll keep doing it as long as it keeps working.

Maybe you missed 2007 and 2008?

Bob78164 wrote:How much military experience do you have? How much experience facing guerilla warfare in mountainous terrain?

Trump's strategy would appear to be, drop a nuke or two and declare victory ... until the next terrorist attack.

Admittedly, with his 3 am tweets, it's difficult to say how much of this he actually intends to do and how much he's merely tweeting to hear himself talk.

Of course, a President of the United States should not be doing that since foreign countries, both our enemies and our potential allies have to react to what he says (or tweets).

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:...prelude to the solution Republicans always come up with to boost the economy. Cut taxes for the rich, claim there's some type of global crisis and spend insane amounts of money on new weapons systems.

As opposed to the Democrats who tax the rich, claim there some sort of global (warming) crisis and spend insane amount of money on new solar power systems?

Got it.

Democrats have never hidden the fact that they favor government spending to boost the economy. The difference is that they are trying to spend on things that will have beneficial long term effects for this country in other ways. Reducing our energy dependency and taking steps against global warming would be a major benefit for everyone, not just a few defense contractors.

Bob78164 wrote:How much military experience do you have?

More than Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and you, combined.

BackInTex wrote:

elwoodblues wrote:I hope someone tells Trump that a nuclear war would be bad for the hotel business.

No need. He knows it. He's a smart man. Keep that in mind.

He's the stupidest, most ignorant man to have ever been elected.

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

elwoodblues wrote:I hope someone tells Trump that a nuclear war would be bad for the hotel business.

No need. He knows it. He's a smart man. Keep that in mind.

He's the stupidest, most ignorant man to have ever been elected.

And he's surrounded himself with top level advisers who have virtually no experience in government. I know some people are excited about bringing in "outsiders." Then, when an emergency hits, they realize what that lack of experience really means.