ChrisWeigant.com

The How-Many-Years' War

[ Posted Monday, May 30th, 2016 – 15:44 UTC ]

Being in the midst of history sometimes mean events are not seen in the "big picture" view that historians often later take, when looking back at the period. Case in point: what will America's ongoing war eventually be known as? To date, we've been at war since October 2001, or a mind-boggling period of 15 years. This war was initially called "The Global War On Terror" by the Bush administration, which lumped in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq with all the skirmishes in various other North African and Middle East countries. The Obama administration has dropped the term, but they've never really replaced it with anything else. But what I wonder this Memorial Day is what it will be called in the future. Right now, it'd be the "Fifteen Years' War" -- but few expect all conflicts will end by the time the next president is sworn in, so eventually that number will likely be higher.

Three wars (that I'm aware of) are historically referred to by their length: the Seven Years' War, the Thirty Years' War, and the Hundred Years' War. The only one that is strictly accurate is the Thirty Years' War, which took place from 1618 to 1648. The Seven Years' War was actually fought over nine years' time, from 1754 to 1763, but it got two years lopped off because it didn't really get underway until 1756. And the Hundred Years' War raged from 1337 to 1453 -- much longer than a single century.

Most Americans know little about any of these wars, it's worth pointing out. The only one American schoolchildren even regularly learn about is the Seven Years' War, but by a different name. To us, it was the French and Indian War, and in some ways it was a precursor to our own Revolutionary War (Britain levied a bunch of taxes on the American colonies in the mid-1760s largely to pay the costs of the Seven Years' War, which the colonists did not take kindly to, especially in Boston). Interestingly, the Seven Years' War is now considered by some to be the first "world war," since it involved so many countries all over the globe. This was a contributing influence on American thinking about involvement in the wars which periodically raged in Europe from the country's founding onwards, especially after the pointless War Of 1812 drove the point home. Shortly thereafter, America embraced the Monroe Doctrine which stated in part that Europe should leave the Americas alone and the United States wouldn't get involved in European conflicts. Later on, America was very reluctant to get involved with both twentieth-century world wars because of this long-held belief that Europe should solve its own problems.

The Thirty Years' War was religious in nature, at least at the start. It was the last big battle between Protestants and Catholics in Europe. The Hundred Years' War was mostly waged between England and France (in a nutshell, France had ruled England since the Norman Conquest, and the English thought it'd be a better idea if they ruled France, instead). Both were long drawn-out conflicts with periods of calm interspersed with major battles in various places. It was thinking of these two that made me wonder whether in the future the period America and the Middle East now find themselves in might be called something like the "Twenty Years' War" or perhaps the "Quarter-Century's War." And that's being optimistic, of course.

This is the longest period of American history when we've been constantly at war. The level of our involvement has waxed and waned, from having over a hundred thousand soldiers on the battlefield to merely conducting drone strikes from above. We've been overtly involved to some degree or another in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen. But America has always seen this as a war without borders, so it has spilled over into plenty of other countries in other ways (such as a raid conducted within Pakistan to capture Osama Bin Laden, for instance). There are proxy wars going on, often involving the animosity between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Groups like the Islamic State and Al Qaeda have tried to expand into as many franchises as they can in as many different countries as they can, with varying degrees of success.

Right now the hottest war is being waged in Syria. This is truly a global conflict, with the Americans and the Russians backing different sides in a multiplicity of fighting groups. The Islamic State is benefiting from the fighting between the other groups, in fact. In Iraq, the Americans have backed the Iraqi army (and, to a lesser degree, the Kurds), and the Islamic State has lost major ground -- albeit a lot slower than America might wish. The battle for Fallujah is going on right now, although looking back with a historian's eye the current fight will likely be labeled the "Third Battle of Fallujah," since American forces have their own hard-fought battles to remember in this town. Fallujah was where an American military contractor was killed and his burnt corpse hung from a bridge, in case you've forgotten. The final big battle in Iraq will come in the northern city of Mosul.

Iraq is right now a success story for the Iraqi government's side, which is a big turnaround from when their army fled in terror a few years ago (while the Islamic State moved in blitzkrieg fashion from town to town, getting ever closer to Baghdad). Starting roughly a year ago, the tide has turned completely and the Islamic State has lost almost half the Iraqi territory they once held. The progress is slow, but has been consistent -- the Islamic State has lost every major conflict, and has never regained major ground once lost.

It is hard to see an end to the overall war, even at this point, fifteen years in. America's new normal is being at war -- although in a barely-noticeable fashion. Since Barack Obama took office, our troop presence has been drastically reduced in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the conflicts didn't exactly end in either place. We've been drawn in to new battlefields (Yemen, Syria), and other countries also look ripe for America to get drawn into (Libya) in the near future, depending on who becomes our next president. Who now can see an end to this region-wide conflict? The chances now actually seem better that the war intensifies -- perhaps as Saudi Arabia and Iran get closer to more-overt hostilities. American soldiers might be deployed in this conflict for a long time to come, in various countries around the region.

It is remarkable that we've spent the last decade and a half at war. It's gotten to the point that most people don't even think about it in any way -- a natural reaction to the (so far) Fifteen Years' War. But what's really remarkable to consider today is that we've gone through the longest period at war in our entire history and we still have an all-volunteer army. Conscription has not returned. The politicians learned their lesson well from Vietnam -- when young men (and, now, women) face being drafted, then the public gets a lot more involved in war decisions.

This Memorial Day I'll be remembering all who died in service to the United States military. Especially all those who have died in our current and ongoing wars -- every one of whom volunteered to do his or her duty, so that your son or daughter or other loved one wasn't forced to. But I do wonder how many more of our fighting men and women will be memorialized before the Twenty Years' War (or Quarter-Century's War, or whatever) is finally over.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

46 Comments on “The How-Many-Years' War”

  1. [1] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Three wars (that I'm aware of) are historically referred to by their length: the Seven Years' War, the Thirty Years' War, and the Hundred Years' War.

    how about the six day war?

  2. [2] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    wikipedia has a page that lists twenty-eight wars named by length:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_named_for_their_duration

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:

    It is remarkable that we've spent the last decade and a half at war. It's gotten to the point that most people don't even think about it in any way

    Should we be surprised when the instigator of the war (#idiotboy) told us to all go shopping?

  4. [4] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, a big mea culpa to all commenters who got caught in the auto-filter for around the past week.

    I've restored them all, and apologize for not keeping up on maintenance in the meantime. Especially neilm, who seemed to have an inordinate amount of his comments flagged...

    I'll try to do better, promise...

    Mea culp maxima.

    -CW

  5. [5] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    nypoet22 -

    Good point, didn't even consider "days" in wars' length.

    Nice link, should have checked it. I've studied Irish history, and had never heard of the Nine Years' War or the Eleven Years' War, I have to admit.

    And that last one -- the Three Hundred and Thirty-Five Years' War -- talk about holding a grudge!

    :-)

    But then the Northern Irish "celebrate" (with their ominous "parade season") a battle which happened in 1690, even to this day (for those confused: see Battle of the Boyne, which gave us all -- no lie! -- orange carrots, as a political statement).

    Conclusion: Americans have a very short historical perspective on most things, wars included.

    -CW

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Should we be surprised when the instigator of the war (#idiotboy) told us to all go shopping?

    As surprised as the fact that President Hussein Obama has the distinction of being at war his ENTIRE two terms as POTUS...

    Quite surprising when one considers that Hussein was HIRED to STOP wars, not start them...

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Should we be surprised when the instigator of the war (#idiotboy) told us to all go shopping?

    Further, would you like me to quote how many times Hussein Obama has told us to go about our lives and not worry about terrorism???

    This is a PERFECT example of what I am talking about...

    "I want everyone to go about their lives.. Go shopping. Don't worry about terrorism"
    "WHAT!!!! What a STOOPID comment!!! Go shopping!!!! Is this guy totally whacked!!!! I mean.... huh?? Whaaa?? Obama said it??
    ...... Oh wow, that's great advice!!! No one needs to panic.... Obama is a cool cat!! No-Drama Obama, that's our guy!!"

    A Democrat and a Republican can give the EXACT same advice to the EXACT same issue, yet the Republican is an "idiotboy" and the Democrat is the The Messiah...

    What makes it so pathetic is that the hypocrisy is so blatantly obvious.. No one even TRIES to hide it... :^/

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The Stanstanistan wars have been going on for thousands of years, whether or not we are involved they will continue. There are really only two ways to achieve peace in the area.
    We either wait several hundred years until everybody in the world finally gives up on their archaic religious superstitions or we here in the US figure out how to use radioactive oil.
    note: Obviously the viability of the second option is seriously compromised by the collateral damage.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Stanstanistan wars

    Heh

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    dsws wrote:

    This is the longest period of American history when we've been constantly at war.

    War against Native Americans doesn't count?

  11. [11] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    One thing has changed in the modern era - we are all more interconnected, and able to communicate in real time, thanks to the internet.

    Remember when we thought that better communication was all we needed to reduce the threat of war? (I'm not counting, of course, Chamberlain in Munich, which is always thrown up as the counter-argument.)

    Well we have a new paradigm in the internet age: Nobody agrees with Anybody, and if Nobody and Anybody do manage to find common ground, some troll is sure to come along to restart the fight, just for sport.

    If we're ever to end the carnage, we have to use these new tools more wisely. We could try harder to expose the awful ugliness of war: filmmakers did a fairly good job at this post-Vietnam, but often failed to point out that it was ugly on Both Sides (turning an otherwise good point into self-flagellation). Unfortunately, the only message most people got was 'look how cool that helicopter attack is'.

  12. [12] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Off Topic:

    Politico reports today that: "Clinton supporters have been taunting Trump on Twitter with the #PoorDonald hashtag.."

    I'm not taking credit (I don't even use twitter) but I did make that suggestion here for the "Dopey Donald Contest" a few weeks back. Just sayin'.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Clinton supporters have been taunting Trump on Twitter with the #PoorDonald hashtag.."

    "When we left the White House we were dead broke"
    -Hillary Clinton

    A good mock isn't supposed to remind others of one's own VERY mockable statements...

    :D

    And I think I can speak for the vast majority of Americans who would LOVE to be as "poor" as Donald Trump...

    Back to the drawing board... :D

    I'm just sayin'.....

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    If we're ever to end the carnage, we have to use these new tools more wisely. We could try harder to expose the awful ugliness of war:

    I completely agree.....

    Obama-led drone strikes kill innocents 90% of the time: report
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/15/90-of-people-killed-by-us-drone-strikes-in-afghani/

    This needs to be exposed far and wide....

    We are in complete agreement..

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    A good mock isn't supposed to remind others of one's own VERY mockable statements...

    While it's entirely plausible that after bearing the cost of moving out of the White House and into very expensive digs in New York (that probably included moving stuff from Arkansas as well) that the Clintons were (temporarily) low on cash-on-hand...

    What isn't believable is what Trump has said about - anything - regarding his finances. Poor Donald had to revise statements he'd made regarding the amount he raised for Vets today. You'd think a guy in real estate would be better at numbers...

    Obama-led drone strikes kill innocents 90% of the time

    Duh. I'm sure the Washington Times is just all upset about those innocent bystanders. I'm not anti-war, I'm anti-hypocrisy. I'd have been fine if the headline had continued:

    ..and terrorists kill innocents 100% of the time.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    While it's entirely plausible that after bearing the cost of moving out of the White House and into very expensive digs in New York (that probably included moving stuff from Arkansas as well) that the Clintons were (temporarily) low on cash-on-hand...

    And here comes the equivocation, mitigation and what the definition of 'is' is... :D

    She didn't say "we were low on cash"...

    She said "We were dead broke"...

    Now, I don't know much about the .01%'ers like Hillary Clinton.. Maybe owning TWO mansions is considered "DEAD BROKE" in those circles....

    You tell me?? :^/

    What isn't believable is what Trump has said about -

    Of course you would say that..

    Hillary just got caught in DOZENS of lies by a DEMOCRAT IG....

    But you don't want to talk about that.. You want to talk about Trump...

    SHOCKING!!! :D

    Duh. I'm sure the Washington Times is just all upset about those innocent bystanders. I'm not anti-war, I'm anti-hypocrisy.

    Says the guy who worships Obama and gives him a pass for EVERYTHING that the Left Wingery rails against Bush over..

    Com'on... "Anti-Hypocrisy"????

    Gots to call BULLSHIT on that one.. :D

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    What isn't believable is what Trump has said about - anything - regarding his finances.

    Do you REALLY want to go there about lies and such???

    REALLY????

    Trumps lies haven't endangered National Security and put this country at risk....

    Hillary's has...

    But, of course, you don't CARE about that because Hillary has a '-D' after her name....

    Your agenda is soooo transparent.. :D

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    But if you WANT to bring up Trump.....

    https://youtu.be/vQS1WDo-Ma8

    Here's a video of parents who are teaching and encouraging their 3 yr old daughter to say, "We should kill Donald Trump"

    Yea... Left Wingers are so peaceful and tolerant, eh?? :^/

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Trumps lies haven't endangered National Security and put this country at risk....

    Then I assume you missed the statements made recently by Michael Hayden, the former head of both the CIA and the NSA. According to him, Poor Trump is inadvertently playing directly into Isis' propaganda: “When Trump says they all hate us, he’s using their narrative,” Hayden said. “He’s feeding their recruitment video.”
    You would say that's only one man's opinion. Fair enough, but that particular voice has particular credibility, not the least reason of which is that he was a Bush, not Clinton, guy.
    If you still have doubts, consider this: today the leader of North Korea endorsed Trump.

    Here's a video of parents who are teaching and encouraging their 3 yr old daughter to say, "We should kill Donald Trump"

    Posted by a guy who's apparently trying to make a name for himself posting videos of folks saying hateful things about Trump - to prove what? That people say hateful things? Trump should know that already, having been endorsed by White Supremacists and the KKK. 'Rule 42' dude - if you think it, there is (political) porn of it. And BTW, that's a really bad video to use as an example, since it would be super easy to fake something like that.

  20. [20] 
    4Crawford wrote:

    Things are rarely as they seem. Whether the 7 Years War, or the 100 Years War or the War of 1812(14) or the War on Drugs (aka the War on Blacks and some poor whites) or the War on Poverty or the War on LGBT or the War on Xmas or War on the Middle Class. I read last year where someone counted 40-odd wars the US has engaged in since WWII. Perhaps we should call it the 66 Year War, though it's unlikely to end there. Or, we could call it welfare for the Military-Industrial Complex or the Hubris of America.

    During that span, the only war I can think of that we didn't lose was the one in Granada. Those Cuban airport construction workers were spunky. It took the military might of this Super Power a couple of days to subdue them.

    Also, William the Conqueror (my 25th great grandfather) was Norman. A hundred years prior to that the Normans were Vikings, Old Bill had a better claim to the English throne than Harold and had been selected by Edward the Confessor as his successor. Also, Edward III (my 18th great grandfather) through inheritance and marriages was the legitimate heir to most of France. Philip VI was the usurper Count of Valois. Philip began by attacking English merchant ships and islands and ports. He also, aided Scotland in attacking northern England.

    Our neocons appear determined to go beyond the efforts of the English and French of the 14th and 15th Centuries.

  21. [21] 
    4Crawford wrote:

    Michale,

    Are you saying that only the left detests Dogie Donald?

    And, of course, everything on youtube is true, since youtube is on the internet.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Then I assume you missed the statements made recently by Michael Hayden, the former head of both the CIA and the NSA. According to him, Poor Trump is inadvertently playing directly into Isis' propaganda: “When Trump says they all hate us, he’s using their narrative,” Hayden said. “He’s feeding their recruitment video.”

    When one speaks in abstracts, as Hayden did, one can "make" ANY case they want to..

    If you still have doubts, consider this: today the leader of North Korea endorsed Trump.

    Just as the leader of North Korea endorsed Obama. And the mullahs of Iran.. And the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah.. All endorsed Obama..

    What's your point?? I am sure you have one but I don't think you want to try and sell it anymore.. :D

    Posted by a guy who's apparently trying to make a name for himself posting videos of folks saying hateful things about Trump -

    Actually, it was the parents that posted this hateful video... The guy took the video and pixel'ed out the little baby's face.. Apparently this guy that you denigrate wanted to protect the baby more than the parents did...

    to prove what?

    That for all their talk of peace and tolerance, the Left Wingery is just as hateful, hurtful and violent as the Left accuses the Right of being...

    Trump should know that already, having been endorsed by White Supremacists and the KKK.

    Actually, it's Hillary that was endorsed by the KKK... Which makes sense, since the KKK was started by Democrats.. The KKK is just returning home... :D

    And BTW, that's a really bad video to use as an example, since it would be super easy to fake something like that.

    But it wasn't faked... THAT's the point... :D

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    4Crawford,

    Are you saying that only the left detests Dogie Donald?

    No.. I am saying that the Left is as hateful, hurtful, intolerant and violent as the Left accuses the Right of being..

    In other words... Blatant hypocrisy...

    Not sure if you are new here or not..

    "I don't recognize the name but the.... fez... looks familiar.."
    -Austin Powers

    :D

    But, if you are.....

    "WELCOME TO THE PARTY, PAL!!!"
    -John McClane, DIE HARD

    :D

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    4Crawford,

    I will also say that upwards of 40% of DEMOCRATS love Donald Trump...

    Let me break it down again for you..

    30% of Americans are Democrats

    30% of Americans are Republicans

    40% of Americans are Independents/NPAs

    Trump has about 80% of Republicans sewn up..

    Trump has about 40% of Democrats sewn up..

    Trump has about 95% of Independents/NPAs sewn up...

    If the election were held right now.. (I am just estimating here)...

    Hillary would get 20% of Democrats and Trump would get 10%..

    Hillary would get 5% of Republicans, Trump would get 25%...

    Hillary would get 1% of Independents/NPAs, Trump would get 39%...

    So, if the election were held today, it would be Trump with 74% of the vote and Hillary with 26% of the vote..

    TRUMP would win the popular vote by an uber-landslide...

    And since we KNOW that the Left Wingery is ALL about the Popular Vote... :D

    Say hello to President Trump.... :D

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    War on Drugs (aka the War on Blacks and some poor whites)

    Oh puulleeeze... :^/

    If ANYTHING it was a War On Druggies... Doesn't matter whether they're white or black or yellow or green or purple....

    And, personally, I don't have a problem with that...

    What is it about the Left Wingery that they have to bring race into EVERY issue.. Even issues that have NOTHING to do with race??

    How can we become a post racial society when the Left Wingery won't stop dividing people by race???

    Our neocons appear determined to go beyond the efforts of the English and French of the 14th and 15th Centuries.

    And yet, everyone (Don Harris excepted) here supports Hillary Clinton, the biggest NeoCon running....

    Funny how "principles" go out the window when it's all about WINNING... :^/

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    4Crawford wrote:

    Michale,

    Are you a magician? Pulling those percentages from your nether regions is akin to pulling a a rabbit from a hat . . . except that the rabbits are real.

    Your memory seems as limited as your devotion to reality. I've been here a few times before but have taken a couple of leaves of absence. We went back and forth a few times. You've changed a little. You've strayed a bit further off the reservation. Senility?

    Seeing all "lefties" as the same comports with most every other position you take. My apologies for breaking this to you but the real world is complex. Those who have not the wherewithal for dealing with that world resort to the simplistic, which is both pitiful and pitiable.

    By the way, Hillary is a neocon. Were it not for their putative progressive stands on social a few social issues, they would sit very close to Chaney on the political spectrum. Nah, they should probably be considered almost moderate Republicans.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are you a magician? Pulling those percentages from your nether regions is akin to pulling a a rabbit from a hat . . . except that the rabbits are real.

    They are rounded percentages, but they are accurate for the purposes of illustrating my point..

    Your memory seems as limited as your devotion to reality. I've been here a few times before but have taken a couple of leaves of absence. We went back and forth a few times. You've changed a little. You've strayed a bit further off the reservation. Senility?

    Quite possibly..

    Do you have ANY facts to refute my facts??? :D

    Seeing all "lefties" as the same comports with most every other position you take. My apologies for breaking this to you but the real world is complex. Those who have not the wherewithal for dealing with that world resort to the simplistic, which is both pitiful and pitiable.

    I am just a simple knuckle-dragging groundpounder.. I don't ponder what the definition of 'is' is like so many people here do...

    I live in a simple world where a lie is a lie is a lie...

    I'll leave the hoitey-toitey koom-bye-yaaa everything is awesome world where EVERYTHING and ANYTHING can be nuanced and where set and firm definitions (male/female/black/white) are variable and malleable depending on what political agenda is in play????

    That world I'll leave to you and yours.... :D

    By the way, Hillary is a neocon.

    Yea, that's what I said...

    So why is the Left Wingery (Including the vast majority of Weigantians) supporting her en masse??

    Were it not for their putative progressive stands on social a few social issues, they would sit very close to Chaney on the political spectrum.

    Yea, you are repeating what I have already said...

    So the question of Left Wingery support becomes a valid question..

    A question that NO ONE wants to answer..

    "Every man in this room wants to kill this guy!!! Gee!!! I wonder why that is!!!???"
    -Kevin Spacey, THE NEGOTIATOR

    :D

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    4Crawford,

    I know what you are thinking.. You are thinking that there are NO Hispanics who could POSSIBLY vote for Trump...

    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-latino-immigrant-makes-impassioned-case-trump/

    Your thinking is wrong... Just as I can point to black groups that support Trump....

    Hillary is a liar.. She DOES have the WE LOVE LIARS vote wrapped up, I'll give you that....

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    4Crawford wrote:

    My grandmother used to say that you ain't learning nothing when you're talking. Scrolling through this site, it appears that one individual has far outdistanced all others in "talking" (and shouting). So, there does appear to be a correlation: lots of talking with very little learning.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    My grandmother used to say that you ain't learning nothing when you're talking. Scrolling through this site, it appears that one individual has far outdistanced all others in "talking" (and shouting).

    Since no one here is "talking" your grandmother's advice isn't really applicable..

    I ask you for FACTS and you give me Grandmotherly parables...

    So, there does appear to be a correlation: lots of talking with very little learning.

    Yer right.. Ya'all aren't learning anything..

    The facts clearly show that Hillary lied... Yet no one here has conceded this....

    Ya'all haven't learned a damn thing... :D

    On the other hand, *I* have learned a lot... I have learned that, with the vast majority of Weigantians (notable exceptions noted) the *ONLY* thing that matters is whether a person has a -D or a -R after their name...

    MIchale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that, when Democrats have something to crow about, the comments here outpace mine 5-1....

    It ain't MY fault that Democrats are in the gutter right now, that their candidate is a piss poor human being and no one has any good news to crow about... :D

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Trump has about 95% of Independents/NPAs sewn up...

    What, did you poll only yourself then add a generous margin of error?

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    What, did you poll only yourself then add a generous margin of error?

    I read...

    If you have any FACTS that dispute my facts, by all means.... Show them...

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    By their very nature, Independents and NPAs are Anti-Establishment, Anti-Status Quo....

    Hillary is the biggest Establishment/Status Quo candidate in the history of this country...

    And Trump is the epitome the Anti-Establishment, the Anti-Status Quo

    I don't know how it is on YOUR planet, but here on Planet Earth, 2 + 2 DOES = 4....

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/31/charles-hurt-trump-again-proves-he-is-master-of-th/

    Those who control the media win the election..

    And Hillary has proven time and time again that she only shuns the media...

    Trump has them wrapped around his little hand... :D

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump gave over 5 million to Veterans in a couple months..

    Clintons have given less than 70,000 to Veterans in 10 years...

    I know who I am voting for....

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    4Crawford wrote:

    Bashi,

    You may have found the method in his madness.

    He also seems to feel that the amount of verbiage is the deciding factor as to who wins an argument. Seeing someone so enthusiastically embrace such simplistic criteria is momentarily amusing but it quickly wears thin. For now, I'm ready to leave him in his sandbox and repair to the company of adults.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    He also seems to feel that the amount of verbiage is the deciding factor as to who wins an argument. Seeing someone so enthusiastically embrace such simplistic criteria is momentarily amusing but it quickly wears thin. For now, I'm ready to leave him in his sandbox and repair to the company of adults.

    And yet... Here you are...

    Yea, it's SOOO mature talking about someone as if they aren't present..

    That's a 5yr old's trick... :D

    Keep trying.. We'll graduate you to 8yr old tricks in no time!!! :D

    You see the difference between you and I??

    I attack your positions...

    You attack the person...

    I have asked you and Bashi for FACTS to support your claims that I am wrong..

    All I got back are insults...

    So, who deals with FACTS and who are acting like immature children???

    It's perfectly obvious..... :D

    Feel free to try again... :D

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Don't cross brains with Spock. He'll cut you to pieces every time."
    -Ensign Hikaru Sulu

    :D

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    He also seems to feel that the amount of verbiage is the deciding factor as to who wins an argument.

    Nope.. It's the last man standing.. :D

    heh :D

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's what ya'all don't seem to get...

    1) This is an Anti-establishment Year. Trump is THE anti-establishment candidate/ Hillary is the very definition of Establishment.

    2) Trump controls his media narrative better than anyone since Reagan. He is Teflon. While Hillary, even with all the media hacks trying to protect her, is Velcro

    3) Trump is a branding & social media genius. Between Twitter, Facebook, & other Soc. Media sites, Trump has almost 20 million followers so he can circumvent the Press anytime or drive the news cycle anytime he wants with a tweet or a 15-second video. Hillary, well , she can't even use a blackberry.

    4) Most important of all. Trump has Charisma. And Charisma always wins. Hillary has none. Her screeching voice and lack of any authenticity makes you want to hate her the more you see her.

    (Credit to MattWoodNYC...) :D

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    If you have any FACTS that dispute my facts, by all means.... Show them...

    Shouldn't you post some actual facts first?

    I have asked you and Bashi for FACTS to support your claims that I am wrong..

    Wild accusations and ass pulled numbers are on you to prove. But for fun here is the latest Rasmussen White House Watch. You can piddle with the number all you want, you won't be getting the 61% required to match your poll of yourself...

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    And what Fact does that single poll support??

    Further, what part of "I am just estimating here" do you not understand???

    I was simply showing 4Crawford the break down that COULD happen on election day based on media reports of Trump's popularity with the 3 basic voter groups, Dem, GOP, NPA...

    While the comment was hyperbolic in the extreme (duh) the point is valid..

    Democrats and Independents are breaking BIG for Trump..

    Ya'all claiming that Trump CAN'T win is redonkulous.. :D

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Further, what part of "I am just estimating here" do you not understand???

    95% of the independent vote was not estimating, it was exposing your wettest dreams to the forum. You could put free money and beer to a vote in a bar full of alcoholics and not get 95%...

    Ya'all claiming that Trump CAN'T win is redonkulous.. :D

    Ya'all claiming that Clinton CAN'T win is redonkulous.. :D

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    95% of the independent vote was not estimating, it was exposing your wettest dreams to the forum.

    I say "estimate" you say "wet dream"... PoTAYtoe, ToMAYtoe....

    Ya'all claiming that Clinton CAN'T win is redonkulous.. :D

    With an FBI recommendation of indictment???

    She CAN'T win...

    Anyone who thinks she can under those conditions is redonkulus... :D

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like I said...

    Last man standing.. :D

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.