Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How Long Will Trump Be President ?
40 views
Skip to first unread message
Gary
Nov 25, 2016, 12:11:57 PM11/25/16
to
I really do not think Trump will stay in office for a full term. IMO, he has
done this election for a lark. And he will resign sometime after Inauguration
day 2017 and before Election day 2020.
Why would a multi-billionaire want to be president ? Look at all the
super-rich from John D. Rockefeller. They all spent a lot of time buying and
selling presidents --- but none getting the office for themselves. Me who run
for president are looking for what a billionaire already has -- POWER. Yes,
Ross Perot ran in the 1990s. But he ran as a third party candidate. Knowing
there was no way to win. He had his fun without the responsibility of actually
having to serve.
Back to Trump. It would not surprise me if he resigned shortly after his
inauguration.
done this election for a lark. And he will resign sometime after Inauguration
day 2017 and before Election day 2020.
Why would a multi-billionaire want to be president ? Look at all the
super-rich from John D. Rockefeller. They all spent a lot of time buying and
selling presidents --- but none getting the office for themselves. Me who run
for president are looking for what a billionaire already has -- POWER. Yes,
Ross Perot ran in the 1990s. But he ran as a third party candidate. Knowing
there was no way to win. He had his fun without the responsibility of actually
having to serve.
Back to Trump. It would not surprise me if he resigned shortly after his
inauguration.
GLOBALIST
Nov 25, 2016, 1:28:06 PM11/25/16
to
he can do alot better than the idiots that have been presidents,
strictly on his ability to manage people and delegate the people
he can trust to each play their roles.
I think he is proving that career politicians do not have
the ability to run a large corporation. They have to play up
to their parties, he doesn't. He owes no one anything as
Kissinger just said. He will continue to be unconventional.
Did he ever show his tax returns, that others thought in their
limited minds was an essential to running for office. NOT!
Has he turned over his businesses to a blind trust? Not yet
and he may not do so. LBJ pretended to do that, but he was
involved in his businesses all along.
Lawrence Akutagawa
Nov 25, 2016, 2:20:05 PM11/25/16
to
"Gary" wrote in message news:gmrg3c5mt07isk36s...@4ax.com...
***** This line separates my response from the foregoing ******
And should that of which you speak indeed happen, Gary, all those supporters
of The Whining Donald will find...much to their surprise...the Establishment
firmly in place in Washington inasmuch as The Whining Donald - with few...a
very few exceptions - is populating his Whining Donald with Establishment
types.!
And should that of which you speak indeed happen, Gary, all those supporters
of The Whining Donald will find...much to their surprise...the Establishment
firmly in place in Washington inasmuch as The Whining Donald - with few...a
very few exceptions - is populating his Whining Donald with Establishment
types.!
Z
Nov 25, 2016, 3:08:09 PM11/25/16
to
Constitution and village idiots like YOU will just love it until they
come for your sorry ass and it will be too late.
--
Z
El Castor
Nov 25, 2016, 4:33:24 PM11/25/16
to
president -- one who changed the course of history -- not as a flash
in the pan weakling.
Dan C
Nov 25, 2016, 5:46:19 PM11/25/16
to
corrupt Dimocrat machine has already been doing that. For eight fucking
years.
It stops now.
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as Lorena Bobbitt tied him to the bed.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
Thanks, Obama: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/politica/thanks.jpg
Z
Nov 26, 2016, 7:43:24 AM11/26/16
to
Dan C wrote:
> Piss on the Constitution?
Hey, the dip shit racist cunt can read!
--
Z
> Piss on the Constitution?
Hey, the dip shit racist cunt can read!
--
Z
Dan C
Nov 26, 2016, 11:12:00 PM11/26/16
to
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
El Castor
Nov 27, 2016, 3:48:32 AM11/27/16
to
On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 19:29:03 -0500, Emily <Em...@nospam.com> wrote:
> I don't doubt that Frump will be remarkable, but not for anything
>positive.
>
>Clearly, he has already changed the course of history.
>
>How do you feel about his keeping his business interests, many of
>which are in foreign countries? Do you see any way this could
>possibly be in the country's best interests?
I'm just as concerned as you folks were about Hillary's email and
foundation -- in fact, less. Unlike a senator, a president does not
have to divest, or create a blind trust. This is rule that can be
traced back to George Washington.
>positive.
>
>Clearly, he has already changed the course of history.
>
>How do you feel about his keeping his business interests, many of
>which are in foreign countries? Do you see any way this could
>possibly be in the country's best interests?
I'm just as concerned as you folks were about Hillary's email and
foundation -- in fact, less. Unlike a senator, a president does not
have to divest, or create a blind trust. This is rule that can be
traced back to George Washington.
Z
Nov 27, 2016, 5:49:55 AM11/27/16
to
Dan C wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 13:43:23 +0100, Z wrote:
>
>> Dan C wrote:
>>> Piss on the Constitution?
>>
>> Hey, the dip shit racist cunt can read!
>
> HILLARY IS NOT A FUCKING RACIST!!!!!
>
>
I agree. You and Trump are not only racists but low life bigots.
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 13:43:23 +0100, Z wrote:
>
>> Dan C wrote:
>>> Piss on the Constitution?
>>
>> Hey, the dip shit racist cunt can read!
>
> HILLARY IS NOT A FUCKING RACIST!!!!!
>
>
--
Z
Emily
Nov 27, 2016, 11:05:28 AM11/27/16
to
On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 00:48:29 -0800, El Castor
Leaving aside what's legal and what isn't, do you see any way in which
his keeping his businesses and running them could benefit the country?
Do you think it could possibly present a problem?
his keeping his businesses and running them could benefit the country?
Do you think it could possibly present a problem?
Dan C
Nov 27, 2016, 3:11:53 PM11/27/16
to
On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 11:49:55 +0100, Z wrote:
> Dan C wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 13:43:23 +0100, Z wrote:
>>
>>> Dan C wrote:
>>>> Piss on the Constitution?
>>>
>>> Hey, the dip shit racist cunt can read!
>>
>> HILLARY IS NOT A FUCKING RACIST!!!!!
>>
>>
> I agree. You and Trump are not only racists but low life bigots.
Blah blah blah blah blahblah.
> Dan C wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 13:43:23 +0100, Z wrote:
>>
>>> Dan C wrote:
>>>> Piss on the Constitution?
>>>
>>> Hey, the dip shit racist cunt can read!
>>
>> HILLARY IS NOT A FUCKING RACIST!!!!!
>>
>>
> I agree. You and Trump are not only racists but low life bigots.
Same old tired shit, repeated ad nauseum.
It's boring, spaniard.
<YAWN>
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
El Castor
Nov 27, 2016, 4:06:36 PM11/27/16
to
already lives in a gold plated penthouse and a home in Florida that
resembles a Disney resort. If it presents a problem, I am sure
Democrats will bring it to my attention. Meanwhile he is the
president. Enjoy the ride.
Emily
Nov 27, 2016, 4:52:52 PM11/27/16
to
On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 13:06:34 -0800, El Castor
I doubt if increasing his wealth was his primary motivation but I also
doubt that he'd miss any opportunity to do that.
As for enjoying the ride, surely you jest. I'm practically catatonic
with fear and depression which increases with each cabinet and adviser
pick he makes.
doubt that he'd miss any opportunity to do that.
As for enjoying the ride, surely you jest. I'm practically catatonic
with fear and depression which increases with each cabinet and adviser
pick he makes.
wizardr...@msn.com
Nov 27, 2016, 6:11:14 PM11/27/16
to
Dan C
Nov 27, 2016, 11:20:12 PM11/27/16
to
Upcheck.
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
El Castor
Nov 28, 2016, 2:26:21 AM11/28/16
to
what are you afraid of?
Emily
Nov 28, 2016, 9:33:02 AM11/28/16
to
On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 23:26:15 -0800, El Castor
I'm afraid that anything that I viewed as progress over the last
couple of decades will be erased and the religious crazies will make
life hell for the sane people among us. I'm sure they'll get busy
immediately finding someone even worse to take Scalia's place and
he'll be confirmed in five minutes.
I'm afraid of the crazies that have been encouraged to come out from
under their rocks, wave their Confederate flags and beat up or kill
people with darker skin or look like they might be gay or who're
suspected of being atheists.
I'm afraid they'll make our crumbling and already piss poor
educational system even worse than it is now. Screw public schools,
send them all to religious charter schools where the only
qualification for graduation will be the depth of their religious
commitment.
I'm afraid that Frump will start WWIII by nuking someone who said
something less than flattering about him. Even if he doesn't do that,
I expect the military budget to get much larger.
I'm sure they'll manage to shut down Planned Parenthood in many places
where there are lots of people who depend on their services and if
they can possibly manage it, completely outlaw contraception and
abortion.
I'm afraid they'll screw up Medicare and Social Security, possibly not
so badly that we'll starve but certainly enough that our children and
grandchildren won't be able to depend on them.
They may keep Muslim immigration down to none or almost none, but that
won't be enough to make up for the bad stuff I'm sure they'll do.
couple of decades will be erased and the religious crazies will make
life hell for the sane people among us. I'm sure they'll get busy
immediately finding someone even worse to take Scalia's place and
he'll be confirmed in five minutes.
I'm afraid of the crazies that have been encouraged to come out from
under their rocks, wave their Confederate flags and beat up or kill
people with darker skin or look like they might be gay or who're
suspected of being atheists.
I'm afraid they'll make our crumbling and already piss poor
educational system even worse than it is now. Screw public schools,
send them all to religious charter schools where the only
qualification for graduation will be the depth of their religious
commitment.
I'm afraid that Frump will start WWIII by nuking someone who said
something less than flattering about him. Even if he doesn't do that,
I expect the military budget to get much larger.
I'm sure they'll manage to shut down Planned Parenthood in many places
where there are lots of people who depend on their services and if
they can possibly manage it, completely outlaw contraception and
abortion.
I'm afraid they'll screw up Medicare and Social Security, possibly not
so badly that we'll starve but certainly enough that our children and
grandchildren won't be able to depend on them.
They may keep Muslim immigration down to none or almost none, but that
won't be enough to make up for the bad stuff I'm sure they'll do.
El Castor
Nov 28, 2016, 11:08:19 AM11/28/16
to
that Trump does not represent a religious movement. Relax.
>I'm afraid of the crazies that have been encouraged to come out from
>under their rocks, wave their Confederate flags and beat up or kill
>people with darker skin or look like they might be gay or who're
>suspected of being atheists.
>I'm afraid they'll make our crumbling and already piss poor
>educational system even worse than it is now. Screw public schools,
>send them all to religious charter schools where the only
>qualification for graduation will be the depth of their religious
>commitment.
will.
>I'm afraid that Frump will start WWIII by nuking someone who said
>something less than flattering about him. Even if he doesn't do that,
>I expect the military budget to get much larger.
probably grow. Obama emaciated the military.
>I'm sure they'll manage to shut down Planned Parenthood in many places
>where there are lots of people who depend on their services and if
>they can possibly manage it, completely outlaw contraception and
>abortion.
conceivable that abortion could be left up to the states, but
outlawing contraception? You are beginning to sound a little crazy.
>I'm afraid they'll screw up Medicare and Social Security, possibly not
>so badly that we'll starve but certainly enough that our children and
>grandchildren won't be able to depend on them.
get back on a sound fiscal footing. Look at the numbers.
>They may keep Muslim immigration down to none or almost none, but that
>won't be enough to make up for the bad stuff I'm sure they'll do.
>
Emily
Nov 28, 2016, 11:31:32 AM11/28/16
to
On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 08:08:15 -0800, El Castor
wing nut and so are a bunch of congress critters.
Maybe those fools who joined up because they thought it would be
better than flipping burgers have reconsidered, particularly since the
Rs got so enthusiastic about cutting veterans' benefits. And they
have that shiny new Zumwalt and two more like it on the way. They
weren't cheap.
footing. The numbers I see show that about half the budget goes to
the Pentagon. Maybe we should stick to looking after our own citizens
instead of nation building and trying to run the world.
Electoral College does the right thing.
<DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 09:32:57 -0500, Emily <Em...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 23:26:15 -0800, El Castor
>On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 09:32:57 -0500, Emily <Em...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 23:26:15 -0800, El Castor
>>>Afraid of what, exactly? Assuming you aren't an illegal alien felon,
>>>what are you afraid of?
>>
>>I'm afraid that anything that I viewed as progress over the last
>>couple of decades will be erased and the religious crazies will make
>>life hell for the sane people among us. I'm sure they'll get busy
>>immediately finding someone even worse to take Scalia's place and
>>he'll be confirmed in five minutes.
>
>I voted for Reagan in the Primary, but I feel safe in assuring you
>that Trump does not represent a religious movement. Relax.
Frump himself obviously isn't very religious but Pence is a religious
>>>what are you afraid of?
>>
>>I'm afraid that anything that I viewed as progress over the last
>>couple of decades will be erased and the religious crazies will make
>>life hell for the sane people among us. I'm sure they'll get busy
>>immediately finding someone even worse to take Scalia's place and
>>he'll be confirmed in five minutes.
>
>I voted for Reagan in the Primary, but I feel safe in assuring you
>that Trump does not represent a religious movement. Relax.
wing nut and so are a bunch of congress critters.
>
>>I'm afraid of the crazies that have been encouraged to come out from
>>under their rocks, wave their Confederate flags and beat up or kill
>>people with darker skin or look like they might be gay or who're
>>suspected of being atheists.
>
>An irrational fear. We have laws against murder and always will.
Yes, but people still murder other people anyway.
>>I'm afraid of the crazies that have been encouraged to come out from
>>under their rocks, wave their Confederate flags and beat up or kill
>>people with darker skin or look like they might be gay or who're
>>suspected of being atheists.
>
>An irrational fear. We have laws against murder and always will.
>
>>I'm afraid they'll make our crumbling and already piss poor
>>educational system even worse than it is now. Screw public schools,
>>send them all to religious charter schools where the only
>>qualification for graduation will be the depth of their religious
>>commitment.
>
>I have never seen a religious charter school, and doubt that I ever
>will.
Well, stick around and I'm sure Betsy Devos will put one near you.
>>I'm afraid they'll make our crumbling and already piss poor
>>educational system even worse than it is now. Screw public schools,
>>send them all to religious charter schools where the only
>>qualification for graduation will be the depth of their religious
>>commitment.
>
>I have never seen a religious charter school, and doubt that I ever
>will.
>
>>I'm afraid that Frump will start WWIII by nuking someone who said
>>something less than flattering about him. Even if he doesn't do that,
>>I expect the military budget to get much larger.
>
>Trump isn't going to nuke anyone, but the military budget will
>probably grow. Obama emaciated the military.
I've heard that but I haven't heard any details. How did he do that?
>>I'm afraid that Frump will start WWIII by nuking someone who said
>>something less than flattering about him. Even if he doesn't do that,
>>I expect the military budget to get much larger.
>
>Trump isn't going to nuke anyone, but the military budget will
>probably grow. Obama emaciated the military.
Maybe those fools who joined up because they thought it would be
better than flipping burgers have reconsidered, particularly since the
Rs got so enthusiastic about cutting veterans' benefits. And they
have that shiny new Zumwalt and two more like it on the way. They
weren't cheap.
>
>>I'm sure they'll manage to shut down Planned Parenthood in many places
>>where there are lots of people who depend on their services and if
>>they can possibly manage it, completely outlaw contraception and
>>abortion.
>
>Government funding of Planned Parenthood may be cut, and it is
>conceivable that abortion could be left up to the states, but
>outlawing contraception? You are beginning to sound a little crazy.
Just wait and pay attention. It could happen.
>>I'm sure they'll manage to shut down Planned Parenthood in many places
>>where there are lots of people who depend on their services and if
>>they can possibly manage it, completely outlaw contraception and
>>abortion.
>
>Government funding of Planned Parenthood may be cut, and it is
>conceivable that abortion could be left up to the states, but
>outlawing contraception? You are beginning to sound a little crazy.
>
>>I'm afraid they'll screw up Medicare and Social Security, possibly not
>>so badly that we'll starve but certainly enough that our children and
>>grandchildren won't be able to depend on them.
>
>Dems have already doomed Medicare and Social Security. Both need to
>get back on a sound fiscal footing. Look at the numbers.
If the Rs would stop stealing from them, they'd be on sound fiscal
>>I'm afraid they'll screw up Medicare and Social Security, possibly not
>>so badly that we'll starve but certainly enough that our children and
>>grandchildren won't be able to depend on them.
>
>Dems have already doomed Medicare and Social Security. Both need to
>get back on a sound fiscal footing. Look at the numbers.
footing. The numbers I see show that about half the budget goes to
the Pentagon. Maybe we should stick to looking after our own citizens
instead of nation building and trying to run the world.
>
>>They may keep Muslim immigration down to none or almost none, but that
>>won't be enough to make up for the bad stuff I'm sure they'll do.
>>
>I think you need to relax. (-8
That'll happen when the recounts prove that Hillary won or the
>>They may keep Muslim immigration down to none or almost none, but that
>>won't be enough to make up for the bad stuff I'm sure they'll do.
>>
>I think you need to relax. (-8
Electoral College does the right thing.
Gary
Nov 28, 2016, 11:34:05 AM11/28/16
to
On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 08:08:15 -0800, El Castor <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm afraid they'll make our crumbling and already piss poor
>>educational system even worse than it is now. Screw public schools,
>>send them all to religious charter schools where the only
>>qualification for graduation will be the depth of their religious
>>commitment.
>
>I have never seen a religious charter school, and doubt that I ever
>will.
I wonder if people who only graduate because of their in depth knowledge of
>
>>I'm afraid they'll make our crumbling and already piss poor
>>educational system even worse than it is now. Screw public schools,
>>send them all to religious charter schools where the only
>>qualification for graduation will be the depth of their religious
>>commitment.
>
>I have never seen a religious charter school, and doubt that I ever
>will.
religion are as intelligent as those who graduate because they are black ?
Here's how that works.
Teacher: "Let's see now. Helen, you read every book in the bible -- and you
passed all your classroom tests. So we'll give you a "C". LeRoy, you are
black ... so we'll give you an "A". Barack is only a mulatto. So he gets a
"B". All of you can now go to college."
El Castor
Nov 28, 2016, 4:58:12 PM11/28/16
to
On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 11:31:27 -0500, Emily <Em...@nospam.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 08:08:15 -0800, El Castor
><DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 09:32:57 -0500, Emily <Em...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 23:26:15 -0800, El Castor
>
>>>>Afraid of what, exactly? Assuming you aren't an illegal alien felon,
>>>>what are you afraid of?
>>>
>>>I'm afraid that anything that I viewed as progress over the last
>>>couple of decades will be erased and the religious crazies will make
>>>life hell for the sane people among us. I'm sure they'll get busy
>>>immediately finding someone even worse to take Scalia's place and
>>>he'll be confirmed in five minutes.
>>
>>I voted for Reagan in the Primary, but I feel safe in assuring you
>>that Trump does not represent a religious movement. Relax.
>
>Frump himself obviously isn't very religious but Pence is a religious
>wing nut and so are a bunch of congress critters.
And a larger bunch are not. In any event.
>On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 08:08:15 -0800, El Castor
><DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 09:32:57 -0500, Emily <Em...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 23:26:15 -0800, El Castor
>
>>>>Afraid of what, exactly? Assuming you aren't an illegal alien felon,
>>>>what are you afraid of?
>>>
>>>I'm afraid that anything that I viewed as progress over the last
>>>couple of decades will be erased and the religious crazies will make
>>>life hell for the sane people among us. I'm sure they'll get busy
>>>immediately finding someone even worse to take Scalia's place and
>>>he'll be confirmed in five minutes.
>>
>>I voted for Reagan in the Primary, but I feel safe in assuring you
>>that Trump does not represent a religious movement. Relax.
>
>Frump himself obviously isn't very religious but Pence is a religious
>wing nut and so are a bunch of congress critters.
First Amendment ...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
>>>I'm afraid of the crazies that have been encouraged to come out from
>>>under their rocks, wave their Confederate flags and beat up or kill
>>>people with darker skin or look like they might be gay or who're
>>>suspected of being atheists.
>>
>>An irrational fear. We have laws against murder and always will.
>
>Yes, but people still murder other people anyway.
mainly Black males. I doubt many of them are Republicans, or voted for
Trump. Relax. Trump is not engaged in a war on police -- that would be
liberals.
>>>I'm afraid they'll make our crumbling and already piss poor
>>>educational system even worse than it is now. Screw public schools,
>>>send them all to religious charter schools where the only
>>>qualification for graduation will be the depth of their religious
>>>commitment.
>>
>>I have never seen a religious charter school, and doubt that I ever
>>will.
>
>Well, stick around and I'm sure Betsy Devos will put one near you.
believe that public schools will ever be "religious" to any
significant degree? Not going to happen.
Here, read all about them.
http://www.publiccharters.org/get-the-facts/public-charter-schools/
>>>I'm afraid that Frump will start WWIII by nuking someone who said
>>>something less than flattering about him. Even if he doesn't do that,
>>>I expect the military budget to get much larger.
>>
>>Trump isn't going to nuke anyone, but the military budget will
>>probably grow. Obama emaciated the military.
>
>I've heard that but I haven't heard any details. How did he do that?
>Maybe those fools who joined up because they thought it would be
>better than flipping burgers have reconsidered, particularly since the
>Rs got so enthusiastic about cutting veterans' benefits. And they
>have that shiny new Zumwalt and two more like it on the way. They
>weren't cheap.
>>>I'm sure they'll manage to shut down Planned Parenthood in many places
>>>where there are lots of people who depend on their services and if
>>>they can possibly manage it, completely outlaw contraception and
>>>abortion.
>>
>>Government funding of Planned Parenthood may be cut, and it is
>>conceivable that abortion could be left up to the states, but
>>outlawing contraception? You are beginning to sound a little crazy.
>
>Just wait and pay attention. It could happen.
now. (-8
>>>I'm afraid they'll screw up Medicare and Social Security, possibly not
>>>so badly that we'll starve but certainly enough that our children and
>>>grandchildren won't be able to depend on them.
>>
>>Dems have already doomed Medicare and Social Security. Both need to
>>get back on a sound fiscal footing. Look at the numbers.
>
>If the Rs would stop stealing from them, they'd be on sound fiscal
>footing. The numbers I see show that about half the budget goes to
>the Pentagon. Maybe we should stick to looking after our own citizens
>instead of nation building and trying to run the world.
FDR has put unspent Social Security revenue into non-negotiable
treasury bonds. Please explain how the "R"s have "stolen" one cent.
>>>They may keep Muslim immigration down to none or almost none, but that
>>>won't be enough to make up for the bad stuff I'm sure they'll do.
>>>
>>I think you need to relax. (-8
>
>That'll happen when the recounts prove that Hillary won or the
>Electoral College does the right thing.
the Electoral College will do the right thing and elect Trump.
wolfbat359
Nov 28, 2016, 5:09:13 PM11/28/16
to
Dan C
Nov 29, 2016, 11:12:33 PM11/29/16
to
Fucking retarded probably, or bat-shit crazy. Hard to tell.
Go jump off a fuckin bridge so you can stop worrying.
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
jgro...@hotmail.com
Dec 1, 2016, 8:06:33 PM12/1/16
to
On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 3:58:12 PM UTC-6, El Castor wrote:
>
> The US Navy is down to 272 ships, the smallest number since 1916.
The fleet has greatly improved since 1916, including:
>
> The US Navy is down to 272 ships, the smallest number since 1916.
Aircraft (operational): 3700+
"But former military officials say comparisons between the Navy of 1917 and today's are an apples-to-oranges contrast. The modern Navy includes 10 aircraft carriers -- more than the rest of the world combined -- 90 surface warfare vessels and 72 submarines.
"It is a useful bumper sticker," said Dakota Wood, a former U.S. Marine and senior research fellow for defense programs at the Heritage Foundation. "It resonates with people but doesn't go into the details."
And those details, he continued, make the comparison off base.
"Modern ships are much more capable than the ones 100 years ago. They have better radars and better missile systems," he said, though he noted that other nations' naval capabilities have also evolved.
Rather than comparing ship numbers to those of past fleets, Peter Singer of the New America Foundation said candidates should be more concerned with outlining a naval strategy that reflects the threat environment of today's world.
Calling the line about the smallest Navy "a pretty weak one," Singer said better questions about the future of the Navy would be, "What types of ships are they going to be and how are you going to pay for them?"
The foundation of the U.S. Navy's current strategic posture is based on maintaining what it calls a "forward presence," or an ability to deploy and station forces far from American shores by using international waters and a network of allies to maneuver its assets as needed.
The U.S. Navy has 14 ballistic missile submarines, also called boomers, in service. The boomers, displacing 18,750 tons submerged and 560 feet long, can carry 24 nuclear-armed Trident II ballistic missiles and serve as nuclear deterrents.
"I don't care if the Navy is bigger or smaller than it was in 1917 or any given year," said Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Virginia, chairman of the House Armed Services Sea Power and Projection Forces subcommittee.
"The U.S. Navy is 10 times stronger than all of the other world's navies combined," Easterbrook said. "To say that the Navy is weak because the numbers are going down is classic political nonsense."
And Easterbrook said the fact that the U.S. has two Ford-class carriers -- the most advanced aircraft carriers ever built -- currently under construction is evidence that its Navy is still far more technologically advanced than that of any other nation, even if Russia and China have made advances.
"No other country is even contemplating building something like the Ford-class carrier," Easterbrook said. "We could cut the Navy in half in terms of ship numbers and still be far stronger than the rest of the world combined."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/politics/us-navy-size-military-election-2016/
rumpelstiltskin
Dec 2, 2016, 1:58:29 AM12/2/16
to
On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 17:06:31 -0800 (PST), jgro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 3:58:12 PM UTC-6, El Castor wrote:
>
>>
>> The US Navy is down to 272 ships, the smallest number since 1916.
>
>The fleet has greatly improved since 1916, including:
>Aircraft (operational): 3700+
>
>"But former military officials say comparisons between the Navy of 1917 and today's are an apples-to-oranges contrast. The modern Navy includes 10 aircraft carriers -- more than the rest of the world combined -- 90 surface warfare vessels and 72 submarines.
>"It is a useful bumper sticker," said Dakota Wood, a former U.S. Marine and senior research fellow for defense programs at the Heritage Foundation. "It resonates with people but doesn't go into the details."
>And those details, he continued, make the comparison off base.
>"Modern ships are much more capable than the ones 100 years ago. They have better radars and better missile systems," he said, though he noted that other nations' naval capabilities have also evolved.
.. 10 aircraft carriers = 10 missiles.
>On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 3:58:12 PM UTC-6, El Castor wrote:
>
>>
>> The US Navy is down to 272 ships, the smallest number since 1916.
>
>The fleet has greatly improved since 1916, including:
>Aircraft (operational): 3700+
>
>"But former military officials say comparisons between the Navy of 1917 and today's are an apples-to-oranges contrast. The modern Navy includes 10 aircraft carriers -- more than the rest of the world combined -- 90 surface warfare vessels and 72 submarines.
>"It is a useful bumper sticker," said Dakota Wood, a former U.S. Marine and senior research fellow for defense programs at the Heritage Foundation. "It resonates with people but doesn't go into the details."
>And those details, he continued, make the comparison off base.
>"Modern ships are much more capable than the ones 100 years ago. They have better radars and better missile systems," he said, though he noted that other nations' naval capabilities have also evolved.
mg
Dec 2, 2016, 2:10:44 AM12/2/16
to
On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 12:11:59 -0500, Gary <j...@upn.don> wrote:
>I really do not think Trump will stay in office for a full term. IMO, he has
>done this election for a lark. And he will resign sometime after Inauguration
>day 2017 and before Election day 2020.
>
>Why would a multi-billionaire want to be president ? Look at all the
>super-rich from John D. Rockefeller. They all spent a lot of time buying and
>selling presidents --- but none getting the office for themselves. Me who run
>for president are looking for what a billionaire already has -- POWER. Yes,
>Ross Perot ran in the 1990s. But he ran as a third party candidate. Knowing
>there was no way to win. He had his fun without the responsibility of actually
>having to serve.
>
>Back to Trump. It would not surprise me if he resigned shortly after his
>inauguration.
>
>
Trump represents a new phenomenon in modern U.S. history. He's a
>I really do not think Trump will stay in office for a full term. IMO, he has
>done this election for a lark. And he will resign sometime after Inauguration
>day 2017 and before Election day 2020.
>
>Why would a multi-billionaire want to be president ? Look at all the
>super-rich from John D. Rockefeller. They all spent a lot of time buying and
>selling presidents --- but none getting the office for themselves. Me who run
>for president are looking for what a billionaire already has -- POWER. Yes,
>Ross Perot ran in the 1990s. But he ran as a third party candidate. Knowing
>there was no way to win. He had his fun without the responsibility of actually
>having to serve.
>
>Back to Trump. It would not surprise me if he resigned shortly after his
>inauguration.
>
>
non-establishment candidate and, to some extent, we the voters, have
"kicked the bums out". Did we jump out of the frying pan into the
fire? Or, are we witnessing an historic, tectonic shift in American
politics where the working-class patsies got tired of being patsies
and made the best choice available? In any case, we've strapped
ourselves into a roller coaster seat and we're not going to get out
until the ride is over.
A more interesting question, in my opinion, is what is Obama going
to do when he leaves office? The 1% owes him a lot of favors. I
think the Saudis owe him a lot of favors, but will he collect, and
if so, how will he collect? Will he collect with 6-figure speeches?
Will he get some unbelievable deals on property in Hawaii, or a golf
course in Washington DC? Will Michelle wind up on the board of
directors of a half-dozen corporations?
Another interesting question is what will happen to Bill and
Hillary's elaborate "collection agency" now that Hillary lost the
election? Will their monolithic collection agency crumble before our
very eyes? Actually, indications are that it is already starting to
crumble:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/20/exclusive-only-five-new-clinton-foundation-donors-in-third-quarter/
http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/australia-ceases-multimilliondollar-donations-to-controversial-clinton-family-charities/news-story/219577919ed8dfbd79cf808321234eba
http://investmentwatchblog.com/by-pure-coincidence-norway-is-reducing-its-contributions-to-the-clinton-foundation-next-year-by-87/
jgro...@hotmail.com
Dec 2, 2016, 8:02:40 PM12/2/16
to
On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 12:58:29 AM UTC-6, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 17:06:31 -0800 (PST), jgro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 3:58:12 PM UTC-6, El Castor wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The US Navy is down to 272 ships, the smallest number since 1916.
> >
> >The fleet has greatly improved since 1916, including:
> >Aircraft (operational): 3700+
> >
> >"But former military officials say comparisons between the Navy of 1917 and today's are an apples-to-oranges contrast. The modern Navy includes 10 aircraft carriers -- more than the rest of the world combined -- 90 surface warfare vessels and 72 submarines.
> >"It is a useful bumper sticker," said Dakota Wood, a former U.S. Marine and senior research fellow for defense programs at the Heritage Foundation. "It resonates with people but doesn't go into the details."
> >And those details, he continued, make the comparison off base.
> >"Modern ships are much more capable than the ones 100 years ago. They have better radars and better missile systems," he said, though he noted that other nations' naval capabilities have also evolved.
>
>
> .. 10 aircraft carriers = 10 missiles.
If you're saying that 10 missiles can destroy 10 carriers, well that's a problem. That's the reason for land bases on Okinawa, Diego Garcia, Hawaii, etc.
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 17:06:31 -0800 (PST), jgro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 3:58:12 PM UTC-6, El Castor wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The US Navy is down to 272 ships, the smallest number since 1916.
> >
> >The fleet has greatly improved since 1916, including:
> >Aircraft (operational): 3700+
> >
> >"But former military officials say comparisons between the Navy of 1917 and today's are an apples-to-oranges contrast. The modern Navy includes 10 aircraft carriers -- more than the rest of the world combined -- 90 surface warfare vessels and 72 submarines.
> >"It is a useful bumper sticker," said Dakota Wood, a former U.S. Marine and senior research fellow for defense programs at the Heritage Foundation. "It resonates with people but doesn't go into the details."
> >And those details, he continued, make the comparison off base.
> >"Modern ships are much more capable than the ones 100 years ago. They have better radars and better missile systems," he said, though he noted that other nations' naval capabilities have also evolved.
>
>
> .. 10 aircraft carriers = 10 missiles.
All NYC needs is one of these around:
"New London(CT) — The USS Truxtun, a Navy guided-missile destroyer, is docked at Fort Trumbull due to the anticipated severe weather caused by Tropical Storm Hermine.
The Arleigh Burke-class ship, homeported in Norfolk, Va., was conducting normally scheduled operations off the coast when Naval officials ordered Truxtun to port in New London for safe haven."
http://www.theday.com/article/20160903/NWS09/160909757
rumpelstiltskin
Dec 3, 2016, 9:58:47 AM12/3/16
to
On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 17:02:39 -0800 (PST), jgro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 12:58:29 AM UTC-6, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 17:06:31 -0800 (PST), jgro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 3:58:12 PM UTC-6, El Castor wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The US Navy is down to 272 ships, the smallest number since 1916.
>> >
>> >The fleet has greatly improved since 1916, including:
>> >Aircraft (operational): 3700+
>> >
>> >"But former military officials say comparisons between the Navy of 1917 and today's are an apples-to-oranges contrast. The modern Navy includes 10 aircraft carriers -- more than the rest of the world combined -- 90 surface warfare vessels and 72 submarines.
>> >"It is a useful bumper sticker," said Dakota Wood, a former U.S. Marine and senior research fellow for defense programs at the Heritage Foundation. "It resonates with people but doesn't go into the details."
>> >And those details, he continued, make the comparison off base.
>> >"Modern ships are much more capable than the ones 100 years ago. They have better radars and better missile systems," he said, though he noted that other nations' naval capabilities have also evolved.
>>
>>
>> .. 10 aircraft carriers = 10 missiles.
>
>If you're saying that 10 missiles can destroy 10 carriers,
Yes, sorry for my lack of clairity.. I seduced
>On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 12:58:29 AM UTC-6, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 17:06:31 -0800 (PST), jgro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 3:58:12 PM UTC-6, El Castor wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The US Navy is down to 272 ships, the smallest number since 1916.
>> >
>> >The fleet has greatly improved since 1916, including:
>> >Aircraft (operational): 3700+
>> >
>> >"But former military officials say comparisons between the Navy of 1917 and today's are an apples-to-oranges contrast. The modern Navy includes 10 aircraft carriers -- more than the rest of the world combined -- 90 surface warfare vessels and 72 submarines.
>> >"It is a useful bumper sticker," said Dakota Wood, a former U.S. Marine and senior research fellow for defense programs at the Heritage Foundation. "It resonates with people but doesn't go into the details."
>> >And those details, he continued, make the comparison off base.
>> >"Modern ships are much more capable than the ones 100 years ago. They have better radars and better missile systems," he said, though he noted that other nations' naval capabilities have also evolved.
>>
>>
>> .. 10 aircraft carriers = 10 missiles.
>
>If you're saying that 10 missiles can destroy 10 carriers,
myself with the "poetry" of the short answer.
0 new messages