Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The corollary to your argument is someone with no experience would have done better which is idiotic.I hate to break the news to you but the job of the president is political from the day he takes office to the day he leaves. Every decision he makes will be political. If it make sense to you to put someone in the office that is a political neophyte, with no understanding of how the government and congress actually work, and has to look in the dictionary for definition of geopolitics, then you have no idea what the job of the president really entails.I noticed you neglect the 10 years he spent as a state and US Senator, his work as teacher of constitutional law, as well as his education at the Harvard School Law and President of the Harvard Law Review and prefer to concentrate on the 3 years he worked part time as a community organizer.Do tell.... What part of "community organizer" qualified Obama for Commander in Chief of the armed forces, and leader of the free world? The part where he sued Citibank to make bad loans?
The whole reason our founding fathers wanted a limited executive branch, was because they understood that no single individual would ever be supremely qualified in every single aspect of governance.
Which presidency throughout all human history, would you claim was completely qualified in all things? Every aspect of the economy, every aspect of international diplomacy, every aspect of military, every aspect of domestic law, every aspect of race?
Which guy was that perfect?
The fact you even think in these terms, is exactly why we were never supposed to vote on the president. But since you have demand democracy, instead of a republic, then you get what you get.
Do you really think Trump's skills in filing military deferments qualify him as Commander and Chief, his dozens of law suits against those that disrespect him has given him in depth knowledge of our constitution and laws, his time spent golfing and selling property around the world has given him a firm foundation in geopolitics. The fact is Donald Trump is well qualified to run a property development and real estate firm. If we ever need a president to develop resorts and casinos, Trump's the man.
I'll take real world experience, over an ivory tower of imbeciles, any day.
You think that working as a teacher, or working as a lawyer, qualifies you for Commander and Chief?
Bull crap. Facing the harsh realities of the real world, where you don't get paid by tax payers regardless of if you win or lose, and where you don't get tenure to talk to students with no risk of failure.... that's worth more than anything Obama did.
Depth of knowledge of what? How to write an 'affordable care act' that made care less affordable? How to stimulate the economy for $Trillions of dollars, and end up with higher rates of unemployment than the worst imaged outcome, and dragging it out for years longer than was ever estimated?
So he can get a peace prize, and then bomb Syria, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan?
I'm more comfortable with a president, who knows he doesn't know it all, and has a list of advisors, than I am with one who claims to know it all, and clearly has proven he doesn't.
Understanding the cultures, the history and driving forces of our allies and enemies, an understanding of American foreign policy, it's successes and failures, a knowledge of the personalities, and key issues for members of congress, an understating of government fiscal policy, monetary policy, and finance, a basic knowledge of our laws and how they relate to the constitution, and a working knowledge of the components of the executives branch are critical to the work of the president. This is the real world experience and knowledge anyone applying for the president's job needs. It's impossible for any president to have all the knowledge and experience he needs, but for a person to come to the office with nothing he needs is a hell of problem.
Donald Trump's experience developing and managing real estate is about as applicable to the job of the president as the experience of Joe the plumber.
Well, you pointed out that Obama had "all this experience" and look what that got use ....... screwed.
Or do you want to blame that on the fact that Valerie Jarrett was really running the show ?
Trump's whole campaign is based on the idea that lack of experience is not a bad thing because experience in government equates to being an insider which of course is bad.The corollary to your argument is someone with no experience would have done better which is idiotic.I hate to break the news to you but the job of the president is political from the day he takes office to the day he leaves. Every decision he makes will be political. If it make sense to you to put someone in the office that is a political neophyte, with no understanding of how the government and congress actually work, and has to look in the dictionary for definition of geopolitics, then you have no idea what the job of the president really entails.I noticed you neglect the 10 years he spent as a state and US Senator, his work as teacher of constitutional law, as well as his education at the Harvard School Law and President of the Harvard Law Review and prefer to concentrate on the 3 years he worked part time as a community organizer.
Do you really think Trump's skills in filing military deferments qualify him as Commander and Chief, his dozens of law suits against those that disrespect him has given him in depth knowledge of our constitution and laws, his time spent golfing and selling property around the world has given him a firm foundation in geopolitics. The fact is Donald Trump is well qualified to run a property development and real estate firm. If we ever need a president to develop resorts and casinos, Trump's the man.
I'll take real world experience, over an ivory tower of imbeciles, any day.
You think that working as a teacher, or working as a lawyer, qualifies you for Commander and Chief?
Bull crap. Facing the harsh realities of the real world, where you don't get paid by tax payers regardless of if you win or lose, and where you don't get tenure to talk to students with no risk of failure.... that's worth more than anything Obama did.
Depth of knowledge of what? How to write an 'affordable care act' that made care less affordable? How to stimulate the economy for $Trillions of dollars, and end up with higher rates of unemployment than the worst imaged outcome, and dragging it out for years longer than was ever estimated?
So he can get a peace prize, and then bomb Syria, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan?
I'm more comfortable with a president, who knows he doesn't know it all, and has a list of advisors, than I am with one who claims to know it all, and clearly has proven he doesn't.
Understanding the cultures, the history and driving forces of our allies and enemies, an understanding of American foreign policy, it's successes and failures, a knowledge of the personalities, and key issues for members of congress, an understating of government fiscal policy, monetary policy, and finance, a basic knowledge of our laws and how they relate to the constitution, and a working knowledge of the components of the executives branch are critical to the work of the president. This is the real world experience and knowledge anyone applying for the president's job needs. It's impossible for any president to have all the knowledge and experience he needs, but for a person to come to the office with nothing he needs is a hell of problem.
Donald Trump's experience developing and managing real estate is about as applicable to the job of the president as the experience of Joe the plumber.
Well, you pointed out that Obama had "all this experience" and look what that got use ....... screwed.
Or do you want to blame that on the fact that Valerie Jarrett was really running the show ?
That isn't a corollary you could derive you from what I stated. You are the idiot.
The best you could extract from it is that Obama's experience was no indicator of his performance as President and that experience is somehow a measure of potential success as a president.
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both were limited to their states and did fine.
Trump's whole campaign is based on the idea that lack of experience is not a bad thing because experience in government equates to being an insider which of course is bad.The corollary to your argument is someone with no experience would have done better which is idiotic.I hate to break the news to you but the job of the president is political from the day he takes office to the day he leaves. Every decision he makes will be political. If it make sense to you to put someone in the office that is a political neophyte, with no understanding of how the government and congress actually work, and has to look in the dictionary for definition of geopolitics, then you have no idea what the job of the president really entails.I'll take real world experience, over an ivory tower of imbeciles, any day.
You think that working as a teacher, or working as a lawyer, qualifies you for Commander and Chief?
Bull crap. Facing the harsh realities of the real world, where you don't get paid by tax payers regardless of if you win or lose, and where you don't get tenure to talk to students with no risk of failure.... that's worth more than anything Obama did.
Depth of knowledge of what? How to write an 'affordable care act' that made care less affordable? How to stimulate the economy for $Trillions of dollars, and end up with higher rates of unemployment than the worst imaged outcome, and dragging it out for years longer than was ever estimated?
So he can get a peace prize, and then bomb Syria, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan?
I'm more comfortable with a president, who knows he doesn't know it all, and has a list of advisors, than I am with one who claims to know it all, and clearly has proven he doesn't.
Understanding the cultures, the history and driving forces of our allies and enemies, an understanding of American foreign policy, it's successes and failures, a knowledge of the personalities, and key issues for members of congress, an understating of government fiscal policy, monetary policy, and finance, a basic knowledge of our laws and how they relate to the constitution, and a working knowledge of the components of the executives branch are critical to the work of the president. This is the real world experience and knowledge anyone applying for the president's job needs. It's impossible for any president to have all the knowledge and experience he needs, but for a person to come to the office with nothing he needs is a hell of problem.
Donald Trump's experience developing and managing real estate is about as applicable to the job of the president as the experience of Joe the plumber.
Well, you pointed out that Obama had "all this experience" and look what that got use ....... screwed.
Or do you want to blame that on the fact that Valerie Jarrett was really running the show ?
That isn't a corollary you could derive you from what I stated. You are the idiot.
The best you could extract from it is that Obama's experience was no indicator of his performance as President and that experience is somehow a measure of potential success as a president.
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both were limited to their states and did fine.
Where does it say it's against the Geneva Convention?You DO know it was Trump who said he would order the military to do waterboarding, right?
Donald Trump on waterboarding: 'Fight fire with fire' - CNNPolitics.com
Trump said he would order the military to do so, and now he's advocating locking up US citizens in GITMO (a clear violation of civil law).
I read your articles and Trump said he would never order the military to violate the law, but he would attempt to broaden the law to allow waterboarding.
i did not find anything about sending US citizens to GITMO.
He can't allow waterboarding. It's against the Geneva conventions.
As far as not knowing about him wanting to send US citizens who commit terror acts here in the US? Where have you been for the past week, under a rock? Here's a link to help you out.
Trump: Americans could be tried in Guantánamo
ISIS doesn't qualify for Geneva Convention rules. And they damned sure don't go by them.
In the field you probably have a good point. Once captured I think the responsibility goes to the capturing country.
Where does it say it's against the Geneva Convention?I read your articles and Trump said he would never order the military to violate the law, but he would attempt to broaden the law to allow waterboarding.
i did not find anything about sending US citizens to GITMO.
He can't allow waterboarding. It's against the Geneva conventions.
As far as not knowing about him wanting to send US citizens who commit terror acts here in the US? Where have you been for the past week, under a rock? Here's a link to help you out.
Trump: Americans could be tried in Guantánamo
ISIS doesn't qualify for Geneva Convention rules. And they damned sure don't go by them.
In the field you probably have a good point. Once captured I think the responsibility goes to the capturing country.
Spot on Huggy. And if the capturing country is a treaty member of the Geneva Conventions (we and most other advanced countries are), then we have to abide by them in the treatment of our prisoners.
Since waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques are surrounded in a veil of secrecy, we don't know how effective they are. There're a lot of "experts" who claim they don't work and there're others that claim they do.Where does it say it's against the Geneva Convention?I read your articles and Trump said he would never order the military to violate the law, but he would attempt to broaden the law to allow waterboarding.
i did not find anything about sending US citizens to GITMO.
He can't allow waterboarding. It's against the Geneva conventions.
As far as not knowing about him wanting to send US citizens who commit terror acts here in the US? Where have you been for the past week, under a rock? Here's a link to help you out.
Trump: Americans could be tried in Guantánamo
ISIS doesn't qualify for Geneva Convention rules. And they damned sure don't go by them.
In the field you probably have a good point. Once captured I think the responsibility goes to the capturing country.
I am a vet, and If waterboarding saves one American soldiers life, it is justified in my opinion.
Since waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques are surrounded in a veil of secrecy, we don't know how effective they are. There're a lot of "experts" who claim they don't work and there're others that claim they do.
IMHO, there are a lot of interrogation techniques that have been proven effective and we should stick with those, at least in the world as is today. There may come a time that the threat to the US homeland has become so great as to justify compromising our moral standards for security’s sake, however, we are not there, at least not yet.
The one thing we have to keep in mind is that the purpose of an interrogation is to obtain information. If the purpose becomes otherwise, all objectivity is lost and we become no better than our enemies.
Since waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques are surrounded in a veil of secrecy, we don't know how effective they are. There're a lot of "experts" who claim they don't work and there're others that claim they do.Where does it say it's against the Geneva Convention?He can't allow waterboarding. It's against the Geneva conventions.
As far as not knowing about him wanting to send US citizens who commit terror acts here in the US? Where have you been for the past week, under a rock? Here's a link to help you out.
Trump: Americans could be tried in Guantánamo
ISIS doesn't qualify for Geneva Convention rules. And they damned sure don't go by them.
In the field you probably have a good point. Once captured I think the responsibility goes to the capturing country.
I am a vet, and If waterboarding saves one American soldiers life, it is justified in my opinion.
IMHO, there are a lot of interrogation techniques that have been proven effective and we should stick with those, at least in the world as is today. There may come a time that the threat to the US homeland has become so great as to justify compromising our moral standards for security’s sake, however, we are not there, at least not yet.
The one thing we have to keep in mind is that the purpose of an interrogation is to obtain information. If the purpose becomes otherwise, all objectivity is lost and we become no better than our enemies.
I agree, so maybe we shouldn't chop heads off.Since waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques are surrounded in a veil of secrecy, we don't know how effective they are. There're a lot of "experts" who claim they don't work and there're others that claim they do.Where does it say it's against the Geneva Convention?
ISIS doesn't qualify for Geneva Convention rules. And they damned sure don't go by them.
In the field you probably have a good point. Once captured I think the responsibility goes to the capturing country.
I am a vet, and If waterboarding saves one American soldiers life, it is justified in my opinion.
IMHO, there are a lot of interrogation techniques that have been proven effective and we should stick with those, at least in the world as is today. There may come a time that the threat to the US homeland has become so great as to justify compromising our moral standards for security’s sake, however, we are not there, at least not yet.
The one thing we have to keep in mind is that the purpose of an interrogation is to obtain information. If the purpose becomes otherwise, all objectivity is lost and we become no better than our enemies.
When we chop off their heads we become no better than our enemies.
Soldier of a country. Got it.Where does it say it's against the Geneva Convention?He can't allow waterboarding. It's against the Geneva conventions.
As far as not knowing about him wanting to send US citizens who commit terror acts here in the US? Where have you been for the past week, under a rock? Here's a link to help you out.
Trump: Americans could be tried in Guantánamo
ISIS doesn't qualify for Geneva Convention rules. And they damned sure don't go by them.
In the field you probably have a good point. Once captured I think the responsibility goes to the capturing country.
Spot on Huggy. And if the capturing country is a treaty member of the Geneva Conventions (we and most other advanced countries are), then we have to abide by them in the treatment of our prisoners.
We have to abide by the Geneva Conventions if we capture a soldier of a country that is a treaty member. Think about it!
I agree, so maybe we shouldn't chop heads off.Since waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques are surrounded in a veil of secrecy, we don't know how effective they are. There're a lot of "experts" who claim they don't work and there're others that claim they do.ISIS doesn't qualify for Geneva Convention rules. And they damned sure don't go by them.
In the field you probably have a good point. Once captured I think the responsibility goes to the capturing country.
I am a vet, and If waterboarding saves one American soldiers life, it is justified in my opinion.
IMHO, there are a lot of interrogation techniques that have been proven effective and we should stick with those, at least in the world as is today. There may come a time that the threat to the US homeland has become so great as to justify compromising our moral standards for security’s sake, however, we are not there, at least not yet.
The one thing we have to keep in mind is that the purpose of an interrogation is to obtain information. If the purpose becomes otherwise, all objectivity is lost and we become no better than our enemies.
When we chop off their heads we become no better than our enemies.
Where does it say it's against the Geneva Convention?I read your articles and Trump said he would never order the military to violate the law, but he would attempt to broaden the law to allow waterboarding.
i did not find anything about sending US citizens to GITMO.
He can't allow waterboarding. It's against the Geneva conventions.
As far as not knowing about him wanting to send US citizens who commit terror acts here in the US? Where have you been for the past week, under a rock? Here's a link to help you out.
Trump: Americans could be tried in Guantánamo
ISIS doesn't qualify for Geneva Convention rules. And they damned sure don't go by them.
In the field you probably have a good point. Once captured I think the responsibility goes to the capturing country.
I am a vet, and If waterboarding saves one American soldiers life, it is justified in my opinion.
Where does it say it's against the Geneva Convention?He can't allow waterboarding. It's against the Geneva conventions.
As far as not knowing about him wanting to send US citizens who commit terror acts here in the US? Where have you been for the past week, under a rock? Here's a link to help you out.
Trump: Americans could be tried in Guantánamo
ISIS doesn't qualify for Geneva Convention rules. And they damned sure don't go by them.
In the field you probably have a good point. Once captured I think the responsibility goes to the capturing country.
Spot on Huggy. And if the capturing country is a treaty member of the Geneva Conventions (we and most other advanced countries are), then we have to abide by them in the treatment of our prisoners.
We have to abide by the Geneva Conventions if we capture a soldier of a country that is a treaty member. Think about it!
Where does it say it's against the Geneva Convention?He can't allow waterboarding. It's against the Geneva conventions.
As far as not knowing about him wanting to send US citizens who commit terror acts here in the US? Where have you been for the past week, under a rock? Here's a link to help you out.
Trump: Americans could be tried in Guantánamo
ISIS doesn't qualify for Geneva Convention ruCles. And they damned sure don't go by them.
In the field you probably have a good point. Once captured I think the responsibility goes to the capturing country.
I am a vet, and If waterboarding saves one American soldiers life, it is justified in my opinion.
Lucky us you are not still carrying a weapon.
Since waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques are surrounded in a veil of secrecy, we don't know how effective they are. There're a lot of "experts" who claim they don't work and there're others that claim they do.Where does it say it's against the Geneva Convention?He can't allow waterboarding. It's against the Geneva conventions.
As far as not knowing about him wanting to send US citizens who commit terror acts here in the US? Where have you been for the past week, under a rock? Here's a link to help you out.
Trump: Americans could be tried in Guantánamo
ISIS doesn't qualify for Geneva Convention rules. And they damned sure don't go by them.
In the field you probably have a good point. Once captured I think the responsibility goes to the capturing country.
I am a vet, and If waterboarding saves one American soldiers life, it is justified in my opinion.
IMHO, there are a lot of interrogation techniques that have been proven effective and we should stick with those, at least in the world as is today. There may come a time that the threat to the US homeland has become so great as to justify compromising our moral standards for security’s sake, however, we are not there, at least not yet.
The one thing we have to keep in mind is that the purpose of an interrogation is to obtain information. If the purpose becomes otherwise, all objectivity is lost and we become no better than our enemies.
I agree, so maybe we shouldn't chop heads off.Since waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques are surrounded in a veil of secrecy, we don't know how effective they are. There're a lot of "experts" who claim they don't work and there're others that claim they do.ISIS doesn't qualify for Geneva Convention rules. And they damned sure don't go by them.
In the field you probably have a good point. Once captured I think the responsibility goes to the capturing country.
I am a vet, and If waterboarding saves one American soldiers life, it is justified in my opinion.
IMHO, there are a lot of interrogation techniques that have been proven effective and we should stick with those, at least in the world as is today. There may come a time that the threat to the US homeland has become so great as to justify compromising our moral standards for security’s sake, however, we are not there, at least not yet.
The one thing we have to keep in mind is that the purpose of an interrogation is to obtain information. If the purpose becomes otherwise, all objectivity is lost and we become no better than our enemies.
When we chop off their heads we become no better than our enemies.
Soldier of a country. Got it.Where does it say it's against the Geneva Convention?
ISIS doesn't qualify for Geneva Convention rules. And they damned sure don't go by them.
In the field you probably have a good point. Once captured I think the responsibility goes to the capturing country.
Spot on Huggy. And if the capturing country is a treaty member of the Geneva Conventions (we and most other advanced countries are), then we have to abide by them in the treatment of our prisoners.
We have to abide by the Geneva Conventions if we capture a soldier of a country that is a treaty member. Think about it!
Glad you think it doesn't cover terrorists, isis, al quaeda or the taliban.
I agree, so maybe we shouldn't chop heads off.Since waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques are surrounded in a veil of secrecy, we don't know how effective they are. There're a lot of "experts" who claim they don't work and there're others that claim they do.In the field you probably have a good point. Once captured I think the responsibility goes to the capturing country.
I am a vet, and If waterboarding saves one American soldiers life, it is justified in my opinion.
IMHO, there are a lot of interrogation techniques that have been proven effective and we should stick with those, at least in the world as is today. There may come a time that the threat to the US homeland has become so great as to justify compromising our moral standards for security’s sake, however, we are not there, at least not yet.
The one thing we have to keep in mind is that the purpose of an interrogation is to obtain information. If the purpose becomes otherwise, all objectivity is lost and we become no better than our enemies.
When we chop off their heads we become no better than our enemies.
I don't recall the US ever chopping off any heads. It is a certainty that LWNJ's will say that Trump wanted to. Waterboarding is a non fatal interrogation method that has worked in obtaining information a few times according to the CIA.
