Its either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton/Possibly several new Supreme Court justice

I dont support trump. Ive said it more than once. Likewise I dont like him. I also dont support hillary. She belongs in prison. My comments was about a claim that a commander in chief = no wars. That was just silly on its face. We are at war. The next president will enter office during a time of war with radical islam. Love will never defeat radical islam.

 

Neither will what we are doing or going to do. Stop the people converting, and you'll weaken enough.

I live 30 mins from the largest population of Muslims in the United States, no issues at all. I wonder why, we are not going beat Radical Islam, Muslims have to beat it. They have to stand up and fight.

 

They have only had a few thousand years to address the problem. Any minute now, I'll bet.

I wonder if the peaceful muslims are as well armed and trained as the radical ones are?? I suppose the peaceful one can eliminate the radical ones with "love"

 

All I know is my vote is going for Trump, Hillary is not the answer and Johnson has no chance in winning.

If you go into a 3 way race, lets pretend Johnson can get up into the high 20's, I would think it is very doubtful that any of the 3 would get the 270 EV's needed to clinch. So it turns to the GOP to nominate their choice. You end up with Trump anyway.

 

There's no such thing as radical Islam and "normal" Islam. It's all the same. They're all taking part in their own form of jihad. They do it with 4 key goals: population (have multiple wives and have multiple kids and expand the "religion"), infiltrate government and politics to help push laws and tolerance in favor of Islam, induce financial collapse, and actual physical terrorist attacks. All with the same goal, 3 of the 4 is what people consider "normal" Islam, and only 1 is considered radical Islam. They ALL have the saaaame goal.

 

No, it's simpler, we stop the flow of peaceful ones becoming radical and reduce the numbers.

Keep pissing them off, invading where they live, how has that worked out? I don't think we can kill enough of them alone, has to be a two prong approach. Reduce the ones becoming radical, and kill the rest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Your choice for president = no more wars so you cant kill them if you are not at war. (Thats just murder) That was my point.

Their handbook (thier bible) would have to be rewritten to take out all the instructions and directions and calls to purge the world of infidels and lots of other vile things. When that happens, we can talk.

Draw a picture of Mohamed and even the peacefull ones will kill you. When they abandon all the "punishable by death" stuff from thier handbook and take up a live and let live mantra, progress will be made.

(Translation, never gonna happen)

 

No more wars where we invade a country(like Iraq), the mess(war against radical Islam) we are in now, will be in for a long time.

If Bush(Clinton, she voted yes) would have took care of Afghanistan and not invaded Iraq, do you think we would have the mess we have today? Which has been mishandled by the last two administrations.

 

The idea is to have policies in place that actually work to prevent things from happening such as 9/11 so we don't fall into the trap of invading other countries to fight an unwinnable war. If we do nothing but love and accept their ideology, they will flock to exploit our country at the same time as trying to change it. They already have countries by the dozen, that have Islam as the national religion, support sharia law, are governed by Muslims, and practice everything they already want. So why do they need to come here and try to change our country to be what they already have across the rest of the globe? It makes no sense OTHER than to dominate the world in the name of their religion, which is what Islam stands for.

 

It would be nice if living in the past meant a damn thing but it doesnt. Today and tomorrow is the only thing that matters. You say we need to kill the radical ones. Unless you invite them all here we have no option but to take it to them.

Reality is a *****.

We dont want them here. Ergo we need to go to them. We dont want any of our soldiers dying for our country so we need to be better at making the other sides soldiers die for their cause until the rest see that its so futile that they give up. Sadly, they are readily willing to die for their cause so they mostly lack that fear.

Let go over their and help them out and get as many as possible (on their shores) to die for their cause until there are none left.

 

It woulda never "ended" only goin into Afghanistan either. Woulda ended up right where we did eventually.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk

 

The key question for me is who, that can get elected, is better positioned to end what is now and turn it around for what could be?

Hillary is not going to change anything, she likes where things are headed and thinks it should continue along the course it is on. Meanwhile you have North Korea and Iran in the background willfully and proudly displaying their defiance. We gave them 150 billion to set the stage for war against us while lifting sanctions.

We can blame Bush, we can blame Obama but we cannot ignore the threat that is there now and how to handle it. We cannot do it with drones no matter how many are hovering the region. That is a sad reality and it will take an air campaign with boots on the ground. Neither of which has to be 100% US forces or funding. I agree with Trump that other nations need to step up and do their part, both with military and funding.

At least Trump stated he was against Iraq, Hillary can't.

 

I respect your views, but I could have swore we tried to go "fight them over there", how has that worked out?

It's a simple question, would we be in this mess today if we would have not invaded Iraq? I am just as much as fault, I supported the war, because I was not informed, I listen to the wrong people. I promised myself I would never let that happen again.

 

Trump also said Iraq would be funding our campaign in Iraq via gold and oil as repayment, I believe he said that when he ran in 2012. He said he didn't want to go there but since we were already there when he campaigned in the last election he said if he were president after the fact that it wouldn't be costing US taxpayers. Ideally we shouldn't military for hire, obviously, I don't think any sane person wants that, but we already saw with Benghazi how Hillary handles it, she does nothing.

 

No point in living in the past. It serves no purpose. Today matters. In fact its the only thing that does.

 

Yes why look to the past, we never repeat it

When you are ready to move your products to a bigger publisher, like Cabela's or Walmart look me up, I can help.

 

I want her as my President.

 

I wish Brooke still looked like that.

Not that she isn't hot now, but dang.

 

I think she is old now.

 

Thanks for that. I don know that we are geared up for such large retailers. We are in talks with an archery catalog right now. Just working out the details.