Be careful.  I got roundly scolded on here when I suggested it was a binary choice.

But these endorsements don't surprise me too much, coming from established career politicians/bureaucrats.  The Trump movement is a repudiation of the status quo.  Those that created the mess we have on our hands feel threatened.

Let's see, Mr. Scowcroft is a "strategic partner" with Torch Hill Investments, a company that is heavily involved in various government contracts.  Having a pal in the WH will certainly benefit him there.

 Then he is a director of Enron Global Power, so having a friend in high places will be an asset also considering the international business they are involved in (TPP will also be a huge boost to this company).

 Then he is also a director of Quallcom Spinco, so that WH connection will com in handy there as well. He's even a director for Pennzoil-Quaker State so again, a WH connection will help grease the skids.

 So please tell me again how this is not financially motivated?

Who do you suppose they would nominate?

Would it be one of the "Good Old Boys"?

Might they choose some prominent businessman?  Some outstanding military officer?

Would they stand any chance at all of winning in November?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/republicans-consider-conscientious-objector-rule-203718191.html

What kind of repercussions could we expect from such a move?

It would be the final nail in the coffin for the GOP and it would guarantee an easy victory for the democrats.

Please tell me all about them.  And tell me how much he made vs. how much he inherited.  Oh, that's right, you can't.  You don't have any access to anything other than his ramblings because he's the only presidential candidate in recent history to not release tax returns.

The Trump Organization has 515 subsidiaries. Are you trying to imply that all of that was inherited and that Donald Trump was not responsible for any growth of the organization?

 It's not difficult to spend a bit of time researching the various business subsidiaries and see the numbers on them, but that would detract from your liberal mindset and talking points.

 So back to your two heroes, Obama and Clinton.   Tell us about Obama's involvement in private industry that makes him knowledgeable on how a business works?  Which companies did Obama oversee, produce a budget, hire people and make a payroll for?   Or even, other than being a "community organizer", what has he actually done outside of politics?   What, you say he wrote 2 books about himself?   Gee, forensic analyst have determined he didn't even write those books himself but used a ghost writer instead (a guy named Bill Ayers, but that's another story).   Oh, you say Obama taught constitutional law and said he was a law professor.  But the University of Chicago said he was only a lecturer and was never a professor.

 What about Obama's time in the legislature? You know, where the majority of his votes were "present" and he never introduced any legislation?  No accomplishments either.   And then we have his lackluster time in the US Senate, again a huge nothing, nothing notable.

 Now let's get to Hillary Clinton, as Obama said was the "most qualified to be president".   Let's see, here we have a lawyer who got fired from the watergate committee for ethics, then goes on to be First Lady with Bill Clinton where she proclaimed that she was a "co-president" in his administration although no position ever existed.  Her Hillary Care flopped big time, she was embroiled in multiple scandals and we even got to watch her husband get impeached. Then she carpetbags herself to NY to get a Senate seat only to do as her protege Obama and accomplish nothing. Oh wait, she did vote to support the Iraq invasion to the joy of the liberals.   Then we watched her failed presidential bid in 08 in which she excoriated Obama at every turn labeling him as incompetent (talk about kettle calling the pot black) only to worm herself in as Secretary of State, a job in which she failed miserably and accelerated the destabilation of the Middle East. Not to mention sacrificing American lives to protect her political agenda.

 And she has made history, not by being the first woman to gain her parties nomination for president, but for being under investigation for criminal conduct while running for the office of president. Now that is quite the achievement.

 

Q: The difference between a Harley and a Kirby vacuum?

a: Position of the dirtbag.

It really is literally tautologically true...

If you don't vote for anyone, you haven't voted for anyone.

To insist otherwise really comes across as retarded.

Really.

 Here is the reality of this years presidential election.  There will be two candidates, Trump and Clinton.  For third party there will be the usual libertarian, Green Party, etc that will garnish a very small percentage of the vote.

 The reality is the next president will be either a republican or a democrat, period.  If a registered democrat voter decides to sit out the election, it hurts the democrat candidate.  If a registered republican voter decides to sit out the election it hurts the republican candidate. 

 Back in 2000 had a few hundred registered republican voters in Florida had stayed home instead of voting and supporting GWB we would have had a President Gore.  Again, a very simple concept.

 Anyone who thinks it would be OK to have 4 years of Clinton as President needs their fucking head examined. The very thought of Hillary nominating 4 to 5 SC justices is repulsive.

Assuming I'm buying what you're selling, what's in it for him?

Go read "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky.  Then go read both of Obama's books.  While you are at it, go read Cloward and Piven.

 It should become obvious what's in it for him.

I'm all for US assistance with intelligence gathering and logistic support as long as only foreign troops are pulling the triggers on the offensive. I understand that our guys need to be on the ground in country to do their jobs and that they need the ability to defend themselves if need be, but they should be no where near the front lines, or covertly behind enemy lines. That is the job for the foreigners.

Should the people we are helping fail and start losing the battle, we should retreat and get out. It's not really our fight. As was pointed out above, this is exactly how Viet Nam started and in that case, we had way too much invested in trying to "save" people that either didn't want saving, or weren't worth saving. The Middle East is just like that.

You should add that whatever country we are "assisting" should be footing the bill. If they want our technical assistance, fine, pay the bill.  If they want hardware, fine, pay the bill.