DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Xavier_Onassis on August 05, 2016, 12:09:17 AM
-
https://youtu.be/rrqqQAfenUo
-
Actually, that would be this piece of irresponsible clap trap (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV7dDSgbaQ0), as the most idiotic response ever
-
You did not even watch it, sirs.
-
The title referenced most idiotic response ever. I provided it
-
You are an imbecile.
-
And you are a moron. So there we have it ::)
-
https://youtu.be/rrqqQAfenUo
Ouch.
I think this reveals that he isn't familiar with the term "nuclear triad" and is trying to pretend he is.
That was pretty bad , but I remember President Obama answering a similar question with a non-sequitur that made it sound as if he thought that the very recent inventions of the Aircraft Carrier and the Submarine made it un-necessary for the Navy to buy a lot of Horses and Bayonets.
This was so bad I was gobsmacked myself ! How could anyone that had ever seen a ship let alone a warship think that until the recent invention of the Submarine and Aircraft carrier that the Navy needed to buy a lot of Horses and bayonets!
Then Mitt Romney just let it pass , as if he didn't know any better himself, or was he just that overly polite?
So after this painful display of ignorance everyone seems to have forgotten that President Obama was asked about how many ships the Navy must have, which, even after being commander in chief of the Navy for four years already, he could not answer at all.
I agree that Donald Trump did a very poor job of answering this question he was asked , but there seems to be a very low bar for such things nowadays.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
-
So after this painful display of ignorance everyone seems to have forgotten that President Obama was asked about how many ships the Navy must have, which, even after being commander in chief of the Navy for four years already, he could not answer at all.
==========================================================
The Navy itself cannot answer this. other than to say "It depends". Obviously the size of the ships matters, as does the possible threat posed by
possible naval rivals, which I imagine would be Russia and China, It is the job of the Secretary of the Navy to answer the question.
By the way, how many ships is the magic number? Just in case someone asks me.
Obama's reference to horses and bayonets referred to the Army, not the Navy. I think the Army does still have a few horses for various duties, mostly of the ceremonial type.
Trump obviously was ignorant of the term "nuclear triad". The honest thing to do would be to ask the reporter to define the term. One could reasonable expect a presidential candidate to be familiar with such a term, I had read it years ago, but did not immediately understand it. But I am not running for president, either.
-
By the way, how many ships is the magic number? Just in case someone asks me.
600
Obama's reference to horses and bayonets referred to the Army, not the Navy. I think the Army does still have a few horses for various duties, mostly of the ceremonial type..
Nope. He was answering a question about the Navy and actually did say that the RECENT invention of the Submarine and Aircraft Carrier made a smaller number of ships good, just as there is no longer such a requirement for Horses and bayonets. So non sequitur completely. I don't suppose I needed to point out that the invention of the Carrier and Sub was not really recent?
Trump obviously was ignorant of the term "nuclear triad". The honest thing to do would be to ask the reporter to define the term. One could reasonable expect a presidential candidate to be familiar with such a term, I had read it years ago, but did not immediately understand it. But I am not running for president, either.
. Trump really missed the target there, but it has been a while now since we have had a president who could sub for a general or admiral, apparently a thorough understanding of military matters is not being demanded by the public .
-
He was correct, the use of submarines and aircraft carriers has made battleships unnecessary. I don't think anyone in the Navy wants battleships. And horses and bayonets were never a major Navy thing, he was making an analogy, and a correct one.
How many ships does the Navy need, by the way?
If it is important all citizens should know.
-
He was correct, the use of submarines and aircraft carriers has made battleships unnecessary. I don't think anyone in the Navy wants battleships. And horses and bayonets were never a major Navy thing, he was making an analogy, and a correct one.
How many ships does the Navy need, by the way?
If it is important all citizens should know.
Again, Six Hundred.
That is my opinion, yours may differ.
But I was a member of a 370 ship Navy , and our treaty obligations stretched us out very thin.
If we have fewer than 500 ships we will keep our crews in exhausting rotations just appearing where we have promised to appear and guarding what we have promised to guard.
If Trump is correct and NATO does not need us and we don't need NATO then we also don't need enough Navy to meet NATO obligations.
So my opinion has modern foundations , perhaps I should brief the President whose opinion seems to be based on inventions of 80 and 150 years ago.
Why couldn't the man who had the Navy in his command for four years already answer this question coherently? Probably because he had delegated all the decisions to the people who had the knowledge.
-
If Trump is correct and NATO does not need us and we don't need NATO then we also don't need enough Navy to meet NATO obligations.
Trump is totally ignorant about everything. NATO seems to be necessary for the stability of Europe, and the stability of Europe is good for the US.
Convincing Europe to contribute more should not be open to public debate.
The US does not need Estonia to defend it. Estonia is a small and puny nation. But the US defending Estonia serves to contain Russian ambitions.
Estonia is pretty well run. Ukraine is a horrid disaster. The right and the left have both elected hideously corrupt governments in Ukraine.
-
What does it matter that Trump knows little. President Obama fails this just as well and many are willing to call him a success.
Is there actually a higher standard for Republicans in the first place?
If we have high standards then I can't explain Trump.
Can you explain Hillary and Bill and Barak?
I am so unhappy with these people , that I want to know more about Libertarians and Greens.
-
What does it matter that Trump knows little. President Obama fails this just as well and many are willing to call him a success.
President Obama has been successful at running the US Navy. Has even one ship been sunk by an enemy? Has the Navvy failed since January 2008 NOT to provide the support it could?
-
Plane's point was that before Obama ran anything, he knew prescious little, if ANYTHING, especially regarding the navy. So, if as you say, Obama can be supposedly successful, without knowing anything, what prevents Trumps from attaining the same level of success without supposedly knowing anything??
-
Has the Navvy failed since January 2008 NOT to provide the support it could?
That is the point.
The fewer the ships , the harder it is to keep the promises we have made to NATO and other allies.
-
That would be because President Obama is an intelligent man and knows where to find good advice and was able to judge what to do. President Obama did not start his term believing that all the advisers were stupid, that all the military were incompetent, which is what Trump says he believes.
Trump, according tho those who know him is an ignoramus who does not read books, who gets his news from Fox and CNN's headline reports and idiotic commentators, and cannot be trusted to tell the knowledgeable advisors from the dolts and the lobbyists who just want to sell more weapons or supply him with more mercenaries, like Blackthug or whatever. Trump has the attention span of a gnat and lashes out at anyone and everyone who questions him immediately.
Fifty military and foreign service advisors have recently submitted a report affirming that Trump is the most dangerous person ever to run for president. No group ever said anything like that about Obama, or McCain or even Juniorbush.
All Trump knows is how to promote Trump. He is clearly unqualified.
And he will lose. Every time he opens his mouth he makes a bigger fool of himself.
-
Thus both of them when asked about a military principal that they did not understand , give non logical answers.
I think of President Obama as a bonehead much the same as you think Trump, and for very similar reasons as we have explored here.
Trump needs not have complete knowledge of all military matters any more than President Obama , experts are for hire .
-
Except that I an right and you are wrong.
Trump thinks he knows everything and says so. And blames others when he screws up.
President Obama is calm and polite, Trump is loud and deliberately obnoxious.
-
Except that I an right and you are wrong.
Trump thinks he knows everything and says so. And blames others when he screws up.
President Obama is calm and polite, Trump is loud and deliberately obnoxious.
Generally the President is calm and polite , so he is up on Trump that much.
But as to "... thinks he knows everything and says so. And blames others when he screws up."
That is a problem that President Obama calmly and pleasantly shares with the more brash Trump.
-
But as to "... thinks he knows everything and says so. And blames others when he screws up."
That is a problem that President Obama calmly and pleasantly shares with the more brash Trump.
In that arena, I do believe the President significantly out-performs Trump
-
Trump says dumb shit daily.
He is rude as a matter of course.
He insults people for no good reason.
Obama did not say that McCain was not a hero because he was captured. He did not say that Fiorina was ugly. He did not even call Juniorbush and Cheney stupid.
-
That's because Obama has his own laundry list AMBE-centric rhetoric
-
Yeah, sure. He has committed sirs-centric crimes against sirsmanity.
-
And yet again, the knee jerk attempt to use me, in your inability to refute the point made. Bravo
-
...
He insults people for no good reason.
'''
Actually we should consider the possibility that this is not accidental.
Trump gets on the news for free wen he quips something pithy.
This is worth money, Hillary Clinton spends a lot more and gets much less coverage.
-
What Trump says is not something pithy. It is ignorant crap.
Eventually his idiotic remarks will have offended so many that he will lose in a landslide.
Sirs has no point at all. He never does. I do not need to refute sirs points because sirs has no points.
-
No.
Trump says that Hillary Clinton is against the Second amendment and people who like the second amendment should mobilize.
How is that ignorant?
Seems more like the facts.
-
Sirs has no point at all. He never does. I do not need to refute sirs points because sirs has no points.
Not my point now, was it...hense the attempt to use me when unable to refute it. Again, bravo