After shooting himself in the foot with farmers and the military is Trump now alienating himself from federal employees?
Certainly, Trump has betrayed 800,000 Federal workers by stealing their salaries while keeping his own. Half of them are illegally ordered to work without pay. His psychotic belief that they’re all Democrats is irrational and bizarre; the political parties of Federal workers is likely as diverse as any other grouping and there is no data on their party affiliation nor should be.But the Republicans will lost a mountain of supporters as a result of this atrocity. The Federal workers have filed lawsuits against this criminal administration but Trump has spent his entire adult life brushing off lawsuits.Our military seems to be silent at the worst time, though. There is no sign that they’ve opposed Trump's violation of the Constitution, trashing of Gold Star families and former POWs, and Trump being a proven traitor to his country. If Trump finally establishes a true dictatorship by invoking a fraud State of Emergency as he threatens to do, I see no sign that the military will take him down, as they would be patriotically obligated to. Some Quorans have been optimistic about this, but I see no evidence it would happen.The military does not work for a commander in chief, they work for the Constitution of the United States and the people of America. Their sole purpose is to defend their country, and this was last done in World War II. Time to remember why we have a military, and it sure isn’t to police a world that wants no part of it.This is really the job of Congress, but Congress hasn’t done it’s job since the Tea party take over in 2010. How many of you are okay with an authoritarian rule? It may be around the corner now.
Is Trump going to win because of the Orlando shooting?
Evidently not. With reactions such as his after the Orlando massacre, Trump just keeps solidifying his base while turning off more reasonable, rational voters. Trump’s base is simply not large enough to win the general election. As in every election I can remember, the battle is fought over the middle ground. Clinton and Trump are the most unpopular opponents in polled history, so the middle ground is potentially bigger than normal.Trump had his chance. After clinching the nomination he could have begun behaving like an adult, much less presidential candidate. He could have toned down his rhetoric, quit farting at the mouth and begun listening to advisors. But he didn’t, and that was his critical mistake. He demonstrated that he can’t help it, because if he could have he most certainly would have. When Republican leadership endorsed him, albeit reluctantly, there was an implicit and in some cases explicit expectation that he modify his behavior, specifically when it comes to racist statements. When he did not, Republican leaders in the House and Senate realized he was, simply put, out of control and began distancing themselves from him.Trump’s poorly timed opportunism in the immediate wake of the Orlando shooting was the straw that broke the camel’s back and cost him the support of the party. His response was about as tasteless as his hat.Trump may think he can win without the party, but he cannot. In fact, I think there’s a decent chance he will not even be the Republican nominee. I think the RNC will indeed modify the rules of the convention to unbind delegates under some sort of “conscience” clause. Too many delegates who are bound to Trump by rules created by the parties themselves (Democrats first) would in this case be forced to vote for a candidate they consider to be detrimental to the party and country.Too bad Chapter 11 doesn’t apply in politics, eh?
Should Hillary Clinton be in prison?
While I agree with Sierra Spaulding’s answer, there is one aspect of this question that I believe should continue to be discussed by every citizen in America. It’s an incredibly important question.Consider that during the Republican’s politically contrived scam of an investigation into the Benghazi scandal, Hillary Clinton voluntarily put herself under oath and testified to Congress about her emails. She made many statements under oath. And as a lawyer herself, an officer of the court, she knew the importance of that oath.In FBI Director James Comey’s later testimony to Congress, immediately after his dismissal of criminal conduct, he was asked, also under oath to Congress:Hillary Clinton said “I did not email classified material. There was no classified material.” Was that true?Director Comey replied, “There was classified material emailed.” He went on to explain that 110 emails were marked classified at the time they were sent or received by Secretary Clinton. 36 of them were Secret and 8 of them were Top Secret.Secretary Clinton said she used just one device [which she said was done for convenience, which was her justification of the server]. Was that true?Director Comey replied, “She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.” He went on to explain that most of those devices had been wiped or destroyed so they could not be examined by law enforcement.Secrertay Clinton said all work-related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?Director Comey replied, “No. We found work-related emails, thousands, that were not returned.”So, the question we must continue to ask is this. Does it matter when someone is able to lie under oath? If Hillary Clinton can lie under oath without being punished for it, then why should we not just do away with the requirement of swearing under oath? It no longer means anything, does it?President Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to Congress. He was impeached because testifying to Congress used to matter. The question we should ask ourselves, as Americans, is do we care any more whether a person is sworn under oath and lies? Is perjury no longer a crime?This is a discussion that must continue.
Do Republicans actually believe in Donald Trump, or is he simply a pawn for some larger plan?
It probably depends on who you mean when you say “Republicans”.Do you mean the party leadership, because they almost certainly don’t believe in him. None of the Bushes, Republican political royalty and the last two Republican presidents, will be campaigning or voting for him. Speaker Ryan only endorsed him with a caveat and under great political pressure. A great number of the Republican leadership has basically called him a fool, or accused his racist and xenophobic language of losing any inroads they had with Latinos and Blacks, who they need greater proportions of to win national elections. While many now endorse him, it’s only because he was the winner of the primaries, and now they’re stuck with him.Do you mean Republican voters in general? Because most of them voted against Trump in the primaries. While Trump likes to declare he has the most primary votes ever, he also has the record for the most votes against any Republican primary contender. Now all those people who voted against him are faced with a tough choice: to abandon the party that supports the things they believe in, or to vote for a man they don’t like because he’s the only option they have.Finally, do you mean Republican who voted for him? I do imagine that they in fact do believe in him. This might seem like a crazy thing to do, but he does speak to some people. If you’re convinced that international trade has taken your job and/or destroyed the economy, then Trump’s your guy. If you think we should be stopping immigration and deporting any illegal immigrants and/or their children, then he’s also your guy. If you really don’t trust Muslims and think they’re all potential terrorists, then no one speaks your language like Trump. Also, if you don’t agree with basically anything he says but think he’ll shake up Washington and do better than a corrupt politician (I have family members in this camp), then he’s also the only candidate for you.So, do Republicans really believe in Donald Trump? Yes, some do, and No, some don’t. But politics in the US is a team sport, and if the Republicans are your team then Trump is your only choice.
Why is the flamethrower no longer used by the US Military?
It was a weapon of necessity, not covenience. It did a job that needed to be done, and it came at high cost in lives.The dude toting the flamethrower was a big mean bastard of a Marine, because the pack weighed about 70lbs full. You had to fire in short bursts, for practical reasons; you'd run out of fuel and the heat from one big burst of fire would potentially burn the user. So you had to know that the Japanese were there, and you had to get within 30–40 yards of your target to be effective. You stick out pretty good with a 3 foot long BBQ lighter in your hands and two metal fuel tanks framing your head. Also, it's very hard to sneak up on the enemy when your steel balls keep clanking together.So once you actually start turning folks into crispy critters or sucking the air right out their cozy little cave…it kinda draws the attention of their comrades. The machine guns on your flanks, the mortar crew behind the position you are attacking, the sniper posted up about 300 yards away. They stop trying to kill every Marine, and they all start aiming for YOU. Find cover ASAP, because now it's like the Wild West shooting gallery at Disneyland and you're the pop up skeleton everybody tries to shoot at once.And when you are out of fuel…well no island-hopping Marine operation ever had it's logistics very close to the front line. Now you have to wait for your fellow Marines to advance to your position and start laying down some lead so you can get back to the rear. All while those big fuel tanks stick out to Japanese snipers like a neon sign saying “Aim Here”.There's a reason that only a handful of flamethrower operators made it more than one campaign.It did prove useful for burning VC out of their tunnels in South Vietnam. They usually weren't the most tactically sound fighters, and the NVA didn't issue the VC anything nice till every NVA soldier had what they needed. So the VC tunnels around villages and farm fields weren't usually guarded by well-armed partisans. But this was a war where the press was everywhere, and it didn't look too good that Americans were burning people alive. Plus, tunnels rats got pretty damn good at wiping out VC with a pistol, a flashlight, and the occasional Facial Reconstruction specialist (German Shepherd).So the Pentagon got rid of it as soon as the need was gone. And really, why do you want a flamethrower….when you can use a mother-f'n flame tank!