LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Does ISIS prefer a Republican or Democrat to win the presidential election?

The fact that Miles thinks that ISIS and the like care, or even know, what party the US President belongs to is hilarious.
 
Sean said:
The fact that Miles thinks that ISIS and the like care, or even know, what party the US President belongs to is hilarious.
Click to expand...


the fact that you think of yourself as a man, is hilarious

cuckold little froggy
 
Sean Renaud said:
I'm in no way going to claim there isn't a large amount of partisanship but I think especially following years of boots on the ground that bombing would have been largely ignored no matter who was in the White House and in this case it depends on what else changes. GITMO and the Patriot Act I just accept are part of America now and I shake my fist but there's no point in being pissed about it. Nothing is going to happen.

Granted I'm still about 55/45 for Dems here but is that confidence that Republicans will take the White House?
Click to expand...

Don't get me started on GITMO. It is THE most misunderstood political football in this country. The Supreme Court nullified the very reason for its existence years ago so that today, it is legally indistinguishable from any other prison in the United States. Closing it or keeping it open is thoroughly irrelevant. It continues to be an Obama obsession purely for reasons of political posturing.

As for the Patriot Act, Obama continually supports re-authorization of a program initiated by George Bush. How's that for bipartisanship? Some people up there on both sides of the aisle seem to think that shit works.
 
Colonel Hogan said:
Don't get me started on GITMO. It is THE most misunderstood political football in this country. The Supreme Court nullified the very reason for its existence years ago so that today, it is legally indistinguishable from any other prison in the United States.
Click to expand...
Which ruling was that? I'm interested in reading about it.
 
Colonel Hogan said:
Don't get me started on GITMO. It is THE most misunderstood political football in this country. The Supreme Court nullified the very reason for its existence years ago so that today, it is legally indistinguishable from any other prison in the United States. Closing it or keeping it open is thoroughly irrelevant. It continues to be an Obama obsession purely for reasons of political posturing.

As for the Patriot Act, Obama continually supports re-authorization of a program initiated by George Bush. How's that for bipartisanship? Some people up there on both sides of the aisle seem to think that shit works.
Click to expand...

I am also curious about what precisely the ruling was since I apparently missed it. At spoint point it becomes symbolic and even if it's not hurting anything closing it makes a statement.

Just because both sides think that it works (if that's indeed the case) doesn't mean I have to like it. Just that I have to accept it.

And I'm not certain both sides REALLY think that it works so much as neither side wants to shut it down. If you end the Patriot Act and a terrorist act happens, even one that Patriot Act would have had absolutely zero effect on, you've effectively ended your party for a generation or more. The risk reward ratio simply states (to me) not to fuck with it.
 
about_average said:
Which ruling was that? I'm interested in reading about it.
Click to expand...

GITMO was setup for the purpose of detaining enemy combat forces under the legal precedent established by the SCOTUS ruling in Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950) wherein the Court held that enemy prisoners detained by the United States on foreign soil not under sovereign control of the United States were not entitled to the right of habeas corpus.

The Bush administration, rather naturally it seems to me, had no desire to extend such a right to unlawful combatants under the laws of war. Thus, GITMO.

The Supreme Court began eroding the Eisentrager precedent beginning with Rasul v. Bush (2004) and culminating in Boumediene v. Bush (2008). Enemy combatants, lawful or otherwise, now have the same habeas rights as any American citizen, thus rendering the legal premise for GITMO moot.

The law of war doctrine of "indefinite detention" (fully endorsed by the Geneva Convention) so far remains in effect as does the right to try a detainee for war crimes violations concurrent with that detention. Such prosecution should not be confused as resolving that detention or deciding the legality of continued detention. They are two separate issues, but I wouldn't risk betting 10-cents that the average American has the ability or interest in understanding such a subtle distinction.
 
Thanks, I knew about the habeas rights ruling but wasn't sure if that's what you were alluding to.
 
ItsJessy said:
Not true.

As for who ISIS would prefer, probably Paul, Sanders or Clinton as they are probably the least likely to increase military efforts in the middle east

though clinton is apparently for a no fly zone in Syria... as is Bush, Kasich, Rubio, Carson, Fiorina and Christie. How you can approve of shooting down Russian jets which are already there is beyond my comprehension.

edit: I suppose it does depend on the mentality of ISIS and if they want us to put troops on the ground. In which case I would say Rubio, though I don't think any candidate has stated they want troops in Syria/ISIS territories.
Click to expand...

The idea of ISIS derives its strength from military action against a stronger opponent ,they will vote Republican
 
I'm sure that, of all the candidates, they'd prefer Trump to win. They'd have a lot more clips to use in their recruiting videos.
 
troubledone said:
The idea of ISIS derives its strength from military action against a stronger opponent ,they will vote Republican
Click to expand...

Of course! If we sent troops to kill the murdering savages it would only serve as a recruiting tool!

Would you say the same about Japan and Germany at the start of WW2?

How absurd.
 
ISIS (Daesh) doesn't give a fuck about your political parties. They just see infidels worth eradicating. So quit this angsting!
 
miles said:
Of course! If we sent troops to kill the murdering savages it would only serve as a recruiting tool!

Would you say the same about Japan and Germany at the start of WW2?

How absurd.
Click to expand...

Japan and Germany are countries. At the start of WW2 they each had long-standing armies, navies and an air force. They had ways of increasing their military resources and size without having to recruit. You can't compare them to ISIS. It's a different beast altogether. The actions of the West making it easier for them to recruit is hardly the only reason for their success, but it can't be ignored either. It's one piece of a very complicated pie.

I doubt ISIS gives a shit about our politics. I really don't. They know we fear and hate them on both sides of the aisle and that's exactly what they want. It's how terrorism works. That we're even talking about them is their greatest success.
 
sigh said:
Japan and Germany are countries. At the start of WW2 they each had long-standing armies, navies and an air force. They had ways of increasing their military resources and size without having to recruit. You can't compare them to ISIS. It's a different beast altogether. The actions of the West making it easier for them to recruit is hardly the only reason for their success, but it can't be ignored either. It's one piece of a very complicated pie.

I doubt ISIS gives a shit about our politics. I really don't. They know we fear and hate them on both sides of the aisle and that's exactly what they want. It's how terrorism works. That we're even talking about them is their greatest success.
Click to expand...

precisely
 
Are you people trying to confuse Miles with facts again?
 
MichaelinChina said:
ISIS (Daesh) doesn't give a fuck about your political parties. They just see infidels worth eradicating. So quit this angsting!
Click to expand...

So you're saying if one party vows to wipe them out vs. another party who buries their heads in the sand, they don't give a fuck?
 
miles said:
So you're saying if one party vows to wipe them out vs. another party who buries their heads in the sand, they don't give a fuck?
Click to expand...

They watched in Iraq as the one party went to war against the other party and threw the victory away out of political spite, so they know that no matter who wins, they will not be closely persecuted...
 
sigh said:
Japan and Germany are countries. At the start of WW2 they each had long-standing armies, navies and an air force. They had ways of increasing their military resources and size without having to recruit. You can't compare them to ISIS. It's a different beast altogether. The actions of the West making it easier for them to recruit is hardly the only reason for their success, but it can't be ignored either.
Click to expand...

Their best recruiting tool is nobody is willing to stand up to them.
 
4est_4est_Gump said:
They watched in Iraq as the one party went to war against the other party and threw the victory away out of political spite, so they know that no matter who wins, they will not be closely persecuted...
Click to expand...


Which party did the president who threw away the victory belong to?
 
The strong horse attracts more riders...

;) ;)

We're the gift horse that you do not want to look into the mouth of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Republican "Midterm Convention" -- WTF?!
Replies
16
Views
94
briancamdudetenger2018
B
W
Trump to House Republicans: If we don't win midterms, I will get impeached
2 3
Replies
59
Views
512
Wilson23
W
RoryN
AOC Leads JD Vance For First Time in 2028 Election Matchup: Poll
2
Replies
37
Views
321
Wilson23
W
RoryN
And another Deplorable narrative dies: D.C. pipe bomber thought 2020 election was stolen
2
Replies
29
Views
442
DeluxAuto
DeluxAuto
nowisthetime
Democrats achieve landslide election win in South Cackalacky
Replies
18
Views
629
BabyBoomer50s
BabyBoomer50s
Back
Top