Holdonnow. I am 95% sure that LTD was, like me, a Cruz supporter. So the "we told you so" screed is, at best misdirected.
I do understand having ones mind made up. I was right there. But, God help me if I ever get so prideful that I cannot examine my own mind to see if it is correctly made up.
When all this started, I compared the candidates'
positions on the issues, noted their credibility viv-a-vis their past records and positions on issues, their behaviour, and came up with a ranked list of who was acceptable. I modified that list according to their behaviour and statements. At Iowa Cruz was first, Trump second (mainly because he was baiting all the right people, not because of his past), and Walker third. After Iowa, Trump had slid off the list. Everything I saw of Trump after that kept him there, rather than bring him back on.
don-o, I understand you have close kin in the Armed Forces, and don't want them unnecessarily put in harm's way. I wish the same for them, frankly, as I do for all in the service of this country.
What we differ on is a question of who is most likely to put them there. This discussion is tailored to your specific situation, but there are thousands of other parents out there who face a similar dilemma.
Clinton is crooked, corrupt to the core, plays fast and loose with the law and classified material.
Trump is mercurial, impulsive, has stated he will ignore our intel agencies, and has demonstrated he will attack before finding out the facts, and then when the facts show the attack unwarranted, will double down rather than back off.
You tell me who is most likely to have your offspring in the middle of some ill-conceived war.
Hillary may well have orchestrated the situation in which our people in Benghazi were killed, but none other than Barrack Obama, and Barrack Obama alone had the authority to give the go/no go order on any air support or rescue mission, and he did not give the 'go' order. Not to excuse her, while I am sure the machinations of that conniving witch put those guys in harm's way, it is Obama who left them there, whether she advised that or not, and Obama who has the most blood on his hands.
IMHO, she is not a suitable candidate for POTUS, either. Neither of them passes muster, but one is more likely to get your kid in the middle of some deep sh*t he didn't have to be in in the first place, and has a track record of doubling down if wrong. He won't accept the blame for his trainwrecks either, but will be hunting scapegoats the moment things go wrong instead of owning it and taking steps to make it right.
Oh, she'll lie, too, but my bet is that Benghazi was supposed to be a very low conflict level snatch and grab of a US Ambassador from a lightly secured annex (not even the embassy), and that plan was FUBAR'd when the two former SEALs showed up and fought (heroically, I might add). It would not surprise me to learn that Hillary and her boss had orchestrated the situation to pull off an exchange of some folks in Gitmo for an Ambassador and use that as a shining example of their foreign affairs acumen, but the setup went wrong.
While a hideous mess that unnecessarily cost American lives, it was not an event requiring or eliciting a strategic level response, nor were even small forces beyond those already there committed, much less beginning a major conflict.
I respect your decision, made for reasons we have gone over before. Only you bear that burden, especially as it relates to your progeny, even though many others will find themselves in a similar situation. It is a tough call, and I don't blame you for your choice either way. I am sure we both wish that the most likely candidates included someone we could be confident would not needlessly involve us in conflict and whom we could be confident would have our troops backs in the event their services are needed, making sure they had the utmost support. I would like to think they would make the best decisions for the US and our forces, based on a solid knowledge of our capabilities and the best intel available, and not rashly or unnecessarily commit our forces to conflict.
But one candidate has the personality which would commit forces to an unnecessary conflict, ignore intel, and double down if wrong while blaming everyone else.
