2017 Predictions

Allow me to amend/correct my statement: Comey is the one who made the call re not recommending an indictment of HRC. He then 1) thrashed her publicly in an unprecedented presser; and 2) dropped an unprecedented ‘October surprise’ letter just days prior to the election. A strong case can be made (via changes in polling numbers) that this letter played a major role in flipping the election Trump’s way (which even the Trump people thought was not going to happen).

Like I said, if Comey was in the bag for HRC, he’s got a funny way of showing it.

1 Like

First of all a Grand Jury indicts in most white collar crimes, not the FBI. Secondly, Comey most likely tried his best to get Loretta (I love the Clintons and am a loyal democrat) Lynch to call a GJ. Upon fully understanding that she would not he tarnished Hillary all he could with various statements to which you have referred. But, if he was actually non-partisan he would have told the world "look I tried folks but my boss Loretta Lynch would just not go for it therefore I resign. But he stayed and as I said played the game.

You are simply speculating/making stuff up now, which means we have reached the end of any sort of productive discussion on this front.

1 Like

I am not speculating that you need the Attornery General to call a GJ, the FBI does not do that.

I am not speculating that Comey tried to tarnish Clinton just as you said he did

I am not speculating that Comey did not resign.

I am not speculating that Loretta Lynch is and was a good friend of both Clintons. In fact, Lynch was nominated by President BIll Clinton in 1999 to serve as the US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York In 1999, she was nominated by President Bill Clinton to serve as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. Where by the way she oversaw prosecution of Police Officers. You just don’t return such a favor by indicting the former Presidents wife.

I am not speculating that Loretta Lynch is a very faithful party member of the democrat party.

You should realize at your age that politics is a game that both parties play and it never ends. You see things through the eyes of a democat and assume that all democats are right and all republicans are wrong. I see things through the eyes of a republican but at least I know that both parties are rotten to the core. And that the typical politician will say and do just about anything to gain or keep power. And they both play the game to get it done. Just as Loretta Lynch did.

Also, you shouldn’t say I make things up. That is very hurtful and you know I am a sensitive individual.

Pure speculation. Full stop.

My bad. Next time I will be sure to include a trigger warning.

1 Like

I did not speculate on anything in my previous post.

Now go fix someone’s eyes for heaven sakes…People are going blind while you are here pounding the keyboard for Hillary Clinton.

You are making me feel like I should run to my safe space.

Isn’t that what the young foolish left wing idiots are saying?

Correct me if I’m wrong

This isn’t as much of a prediction but more of what I HOPE happens that is possible. Obamacare will get some changes made to it but not a full reversal. This might fix some of the key issues but maybe bring a few new ones. Democrats will complain about it being the worst thing ever, as if it was completely repealed.

Also some type of downturn in the stock market, not as bad as the last 2 big ones but of course Trump will get blamed. My favorite contradictory thing people say in favor of Obama is how he has tried to improve income inequality yet the best economic improvement they cite is stock market performance the last 7 years. I think the numbers are less than half of people even have any money in the stock market, and its the top 50% income wise, obviously. So basically the top 50% doubled their money, and the bottom 50% got higher costing or unsustainable insurance.

If you keep this up, I will report you for committing micro-aggressions. (Unless you are calling me a young foolish left wing idiot, in which case I will thank you profusely for referring to me as ‘young.’)

Most people don’t realize it, but any type of retirement savings or funds are invested in the stock market. Not many people have personal investment accounts, trading accounts, or hold actual stock certificates though.

I can see the price of gold dropping as people get excited and pull out of it to jump into more risky investments.

Then there will be the sub-prime automotive bubble or student debt bubble or some other such craziness.

lmao…I agree if someone insults me and the word “young” is used in reference to me…I become suddenly happy.

:smile:

Only after the war. The Allies engaged in a large ‘De-Nazification’ program post WW2.
There is a war of ideas only with those not engaged in war. Once bullets start flying, that war is over and a new one begins.

1 Like

Do you know what the fight in Fallujah took? Ground troops. And yes, the caliphate and ISIS has to be completely destroyed. We made the mistake in leaving bits of the Taliban and Al qauda in Afghanistan and the casualties are slowly mounting and we are not able to pull troops out. It may in fact require a surge as the Taliban is reloaded. If you don’t destroy the enemy, you will fight them again. History has taught us that lesson repeatedly in the last century and this. And we cannot fight a perpetual war hitting pockets. The war has to end.
I am happy to use Irqi troops if they can do the job. Unfortunately, Navy SEALs were required to break strongholds in Falluja. So it wasn’t as if American troops did not participate.

Apples and oranges. Fallujah was a pacification process performed to give the fledgling Iraqi govt time to get on its feet. We were assisting the Iraqis in fighting an insurgency, not attempting to degrade a death-cult intent on sending terrorists our way.

You keep saying that re ISIS as if 1) it’s possible, which it isn’t; and 2) as if it’s an important objective, which it isn’t.

On the other hand, I agree that dispensing with the illusion of a caliphate is an important strategic goal–and I would add, one that has been all but accomplished.

You are now making my argument for me (see #1 above).

At the risk of repeating myself for the nth time, one cannot militarily destroy an ideology.

It’s far from accomplished. Degraded isn’t destroyed.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/28/politics/isis-goes-west/

As long as the above continues, they continue to be a threat. They don’t need land to make terror and terror is their goal. We cannot live with terror, hence it has to be destroyed.

If you allow ISIS to disperse, where do you think they are going to go and what do you think they are going to do?

You are taking the ISIS threat too lightly and that has already proven to be foolish and dangerous.

When the ideology has become actively militarized, the time for talk has passed. Learn from history. Learn how we dealt with Germany. We didn’t try to talk them out if being Nazi’s. We kicked their ass and then engaged in ‘De-Nazification’.

I am just curious, though. What sorts of arguments would you make to a would-be terrorist that would be convincing enough for him to just give it up?

For goodness sake, ISIS is already dispersed.

And re the CNN link: I haven’t read it yet, but the following line caught my eye:
“Battlefield success against ISIS may spark more terrorism for the West”

So, how exactly does this advance your argument?

If we are ever threatened by an ISIS-like nation-state, we can deal with them the way we dealt with Nazi Germany.

You misunderstand me. The battle-of-ideas is directed more at preventing radicalization than reversing it.

I didn’t misunderstand you. I asked what arguments would make a would-be i.e. not yet a terrorist, turn away from going in that direction. What is the prevention ideal?

Um, as long as there is an ISIS, there is something to fight for. There is something to do terror for. There is a brand to connect demented ideology too. Hence, you have to make ISIS no more in order to prevent these events. And they still have territory and plenty of it. You seem to believe they’ve already been beaten, they have not. They don’t need to ‘win’ battles they just need to survive. Being cavalier and unconcerned is what got us here in the first place. Dropping a few bombs does not solve the problem and social media damn sure won’t.

Not my area of expertise.

So long as there are individuals around the world who decide to call themselves ‘ISIS,’ there will be an ISIS. Are you proposing we hunt down and kill any such individual no matter where they reside? Every time someone tweets fealty to ISIS, do we dispatch Seal Team 6? What if someone says they agree with everything ISIS stands for, but stops short of pledging allegiance to ISIS–do we kill them too?

There is no military intervention that can change destroy ISIS. All we can do militarily is degrade their current command/control structure–an objective we are meeting with great success.

You seem to believe there is a military solution to ISIS, and there isn’t one.

Exactly. See my comment above.