MSNBC:
The standout topic... was terrorism and national security. Trump repeated – favorably – an apparent myth about how General John Pershing summarily executed dozens of Muslim prisoners in the Philippines with tainted ammunition during a guerilla war against the occupying United States.
“He took fifty bullets, and he dipped them in pig’s blood,” Trump said. “And he had his men load his rifles and he lined up the fifty people, and they shot 49 of those people. And the fiftieth person he said ‘You go back to your people and you tell them what happened.’ And for 25 years there wasn’t a problem, okay?”
The story appears to be a hoax spread via e-mail forwards, according to rumor tracker Snopes.com,with no evidence it occurred.
The moral of the tale, according to Trump: “We better start getting tough and we better start getting vigilant, and we better start using our heads or we’re not gonna have a country, folks.”
Last night some folks on the right where urging caution against trying to use Trump's own words against him.
83 comments:
I personally think we should be torturing ISIS. But the rest of his ramblings make him sound nuts.
I picture Trump never giving a speech the way it's written.
At a small venue in NH I believe, he was going on about something and someone sneezed. Trump immediately paused and turned his head in the direction of the noise.
How he reacts to things is his guiding principle number one.
"Trump's a blowhard with serious psychological problems. In sales, that can be overcome or even used as an asset. In a serious position of responsibility, it can invite disaster.
Point made, people - you're so pissed you don't care. Well, time to start caring.'
--over heard in the comments at Insty.
I responded.
Because i'm tired of hearing it.
Conservatives are driving me nuts the exact same way liberal progs positively DROVE me out of their lives. Permanently.
Look, I get this is the most important thing in the world to you. You've been the most rational and so the most attractive so far. But now you're expecting all to behave equally rationally following seven years of straight up abuse and the answer is: THAT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
Your party is gone. This is proved to you daily and yet you behave as if there is still hope for it. You are the dog that sleeps at his dead master's grave. You are the loyal Bronco fan of decades ago who comes to work morose every Monday by displaced loyalty to agencies beyond your control.
Your single control is annoy the living piss out of your compatriots.
Your country is gone. Well good and completely gone. You will have the candidate given you despite all the noise and aggravation you create, all the names you contrive for your own team members. Go bake me a cake. And make it a happy gay cake.
The answer to our destruction is to place prez Camacho in charge. Color me skeptical.
Trump does make it feel like a sporting event, that is certain.
I'm not that interested in the faux emotional investment in any particular player. Defeating corruption is all that matters to me.
At least Camacho didn't threaten to sue.
"Your single control is annoy the living piss out of your compatriots."
Tough. Get over your feels. You have a brain for a reason. Nobody is making rational arguments for him that hold up to facts.
It's politics. You are not the last guy in the foxhole with no options but emptying your gun into your own head in some desperate display of helpless power. Get a hold of yourselves. Think past the point where you just get your way against what Daddy wants. Be the Dad. That's your job.
You know who has the highest negatives? Trump
Second highest negatives? Hillary.
And we want Trump so we can lose to Hillary. Genius.
Trumpers are telling everyone else to drop their principles and just follow the noisy wagon like them. Us skeptics are asking you to hang on to your principles, and follow them. If you don't, what will you have after you get this one symbolic thing? If you just don't care now, how can you in 2017 and beyond when what you really care about gets crapped on.
Trump and Trumpsters have one goal: Burn it down.
(& hand it to Hillary.) (oh - that's two goals) (shhhh, the second goal is Trumps secret sauce.)
"Your single control is annoy the living piss out of your compatriots."
I totally agree with Chip Ahoy. I'm tired of people "telling" me what my principles are or must be. Telling me that if I don't agree with their version of reality that I have abandoned the principles that they have imposed on me. I'm sick to death of people trying to put me in a box and give me a label. Insisting that I must think and act in lockstep with them on every issue or else. That I have no rational reasons for thinking what I think, merely because my rationale and lifestyle might be different from theirs.
The system is broken. The country is broken. In many cases it is already burning if not actually burnt down. I don't know if it CAN be fixed. I do know that continuing to do the same thing over and over and to give power to the very people who have created the problems and then expecting it to change is insane and is magical thinking. Children do magical thinking.
Frankly, the reason that many people support a candidate like Donald Trump is that we want to give a big EFF OFF to those very people and to those who think that they know what is best, when all they know stops at the end of their own noses. Supercilious, condescending, elitists, insular, protected, short sighted people who want to lecture and tell everyone else with snotty dripping condescension what to think and how to think.
This is what Trump and a vote for Trump means.
Big Middle Finger.
For those that are still confused as to why Trump is resonating I suggest you read this article in its entirety.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/02/19/a-reminder-for-south-carolina-voters-cold-anger/#more-112620
"Supercilious, condescending, elitists, insular, protected, short sighted people who want to lecture and tell everyone else with snotty dripping condescension what to think and how to think."
Perfect. Thank you for putting it so well.
"Supercilious, condescending, elitists, insular, protected, short sighted people who want to lecture and tell everyone else with snotty dripping condescension what to think and how to think."
Plus the GOPe surrender monkey's who've given us Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. Men who are constantly caving and "reaching across the aisle" to sell us out to Obama and Harry Reid. And supported losers like McCain, Romney and Dole.
The GOPe has gotten their candidate in last six elections and we lost 4 of them. And even in 2000, many of them thought Bush-2 was too damn conservative and wanted McCain.
All the Trumphobes -especially those at NR and Fox - need to stop bashing Trump and start supporting their alternative.
Just because Trump has flaws doesn't mean Rubio or Bush are better.
" I'm tired of people "telling" me what my principles are or must be."
I'm just asking what happened to the ones you always had before? We always seemed to be on the same page before, but now none of that matters anymore. Was all that just bluster and bullshit to be swept away because you're mad?
"Supercilious, condescending, elitists, insular, protected, short sighted people who want to lecture and tell everyone else with snotty dripping condescension what to think and how to think."
Is that how you describe what you've been doing here for years, because all you are attacking is your own positions repeated back to you. I still hold them. You decided to throw them away and attack people who are sticking to them.
We have had exactly one conservative President my entire life, and that made a huge difference , but not nearly enough. Now when the Democrats are giving us a forfeit we're gonna throw it away on someone who was on the other side this whole time; propping up, supporting, and kissing the ass of all our enemies. He shows up now like a big proud wooden horse adorned with new trinkets just the way we like it, and we open our arms because we are enthralled with the new look. It's such a strong looking horse, and we all know what the Muslims say about the strong horse.
I'm not mad at the Trump supporters - I'm sad about it, disappointed, but the Trump supporters are angry at me for pointing out what they are doing. Consider why that makes you so mad. I'm just you before Trump showed up.
Around the edges, Trump has injected some anti-PC sanity (or insanity) which is great. I agree with some of it, and appreciate some of it. But if you really listen to him and if you peel back just a little bit of his past wrong-headed unhinged unprincipled crony democrat support, he sounds retarded. and he looks like a big phony.
I can understand disappointment with the status quo. I get that. I do not understand the appeal of running, blindly, into the arms of a phony who has switched positions on every issue.
Now he's spreading debunked e-mail rumors as fact? Full retard, folks.
"I do know that continuing to do the same thing over and over and to give power to the very people who have created the problems and then expecting it to change is insane and is magical thinking. Children do magical thinking."
As I said, one conservative president in my entire lifetime. Electing a real conservative is exactly the opposite of doing the same thing. Expecting a man with liberal big government principles to fix it is the epitome of "magical thinking".
Once again, what could Trump do or endorse that would turn you away from him? Start going down the list of what YOU think your principles are, and what YOU think is important. If he's on the other side, is that enough to move you? Is there anything left on that list? Did you ever imagine you would support someone on the other side of all that? He's a douche bag, but he's NOT our douche bag.
I started out open to Trump as much as anyone, and reveled in his refusal to back down to PC attempts to shut him up, but like laughing at a toddler who says "fuck" once, it loses it's charm when he starts saying it to your friends. Every day he says something every conservative disagrees with. Rather than saying so, Trump supporters are siding with the man instead of the principles they have been for all along, and they do it every time, immediately and apparently without a second thought. I know you are tired of having that pointed out, but you have a choice about what to do when that happens? Why are you choosing to attack the people holding up the mirror.
Advocating a particular position pro or con is not telling people what to think or what they're principles are. It's asking them to consider your position. It's just an argument and the arguments that have been made here have been incredibly congenial and fair. If argument from conservatives (or whoever) against Trump sets you off then God help you, and your candidate, in the general election.
You want to suicide? Fine. That's your business. But you're not taking me with you, not without a fight.
Suicide? That's a little over the top there buddy.
Fight all you want. Fight for Rubio. Or for Jeb. Or for Cruz. Good luck with that.
That there Rubio sure is a fighter.
" Every day he says something every conservative disagrees with."
There it is again. EVERY conservative disagrees. EVERY one? So if someone doesn't disagree with a statement they are not part of the EVERY conservative club?
My principles are still the same and I don't think that you (Bago) are in fundamental disagreement in the principles. The disagreement is on what can be done and how to do it to fix the mess that this country is in. The same tactics and the same tired establishment people are not the answer.
The President isn't a king or a God. I'm under no illusions that Trump or any other candidate has all the answers or is perfect. I'm under no illusions that the President can get in and waive his magic pen and phone around and get things done. (Although, Obama seems to have made a pretty good start on that king/dictator thing). The President needs to work with Congress and that includes the GOP in Congress.... and here is the rub. Can he? Will they?
For those who didn't read the article I posted....this list is the reason that the voters want to back a person like Trump.....if it weren't him it would eventually be someone else and possibly someone worse. The GOP elites, the established GOP are the enemy. Even more so than the liberals. WORSE than the liberals because they say they are on our side, will accomplish the promises they made and then the just lie lie lie and stab us in the back.
THIS is why we are pissed.
Here’s a short list of those modern conservative “small(er) government” principles:
• Did the GOP secure the border with control of the White House and Congress? NO.
• Did the GOP balance the budget with control of the White House and Congress? NO
• Did the GOP even pass a FY 2016 budget with control of the House and Senate? NO.
• Who gave us a $2.5 Trillion Omnibus Spending Bill in December 2015? The GOP
• Who eliminated, not just raise but eliminated, the debt ceiling? The GOP
• Who gave us the TSA? The GOP
• Who gave us the Patriot Act? The GOP
• Who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage? The GOP
• Who created the precursor of “Common Core” in “Race To the Top”? The GOP
• Who played the race card in Mississippi to re-elect Thad Cochran? The GOP
• Who paid Democrats to vote in the Mississippi primary? The GOP
• Who refused to support Ken Cuccinnelli in Virginia? The GOP
• Who supported Charlie Crist? The GOP
• Who supported Arlen Spector? The GOP
• Who supported Bob Bennett? The GOP
• Who worked against Jim DeMint? The GOP
• Who worked against Rand Paul? The GOP
• Who worked against Ted Cruz? The GOP
• Who worked against Mike Lee? The GOP
• Who worked against Ronald Reagan? The GOP
• Who is working against Donald Trump? The GOP
• Who said “I think we are going to crush [the Tea Party] everywhere.”? The GOP (McConnell)
I see Trump as more of a colon cleanse than a suicide. Cruz is the only alternative for me and I continue to have doubts about his ability to win the general.
Trump has all the support he's gonna get in the primary. If others start dropping out, their support will go to the remaining alternative. Then it gets to be a real race. Some need to drop out soon. After learning and watching them all, I'm leaning toward the only true conservative in the field, and since there is clearly only one, I don't even have to say who it is. We all know.
Trump promises to fix one big thing re immigration. I'll be happy if he gets that done.
Who supported Charlie Crist? The GOP
No -- Donald Trump.
I have the inside track on this one. Donald supported Crist because of a golf deal.
Donald Trump is no Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan could actually - you know- communicate. With words and stuff.
AJ, he's not going to do shit about immigration. He was asked the other day about the so-called DREAMERs and he didn't have an answer. He deferred comment (after saying the DREAM Act was "great"). That may or may not be his real position. I've no doubt there's been an intervening superseding tweet to correct the situation. The point is: This is his issue and he didn't have an answer ready. He's not going to be able to defer comment like that in the general. And he's not going to be able to limit the conversation to just what he wants to talk about. His pet issues on his pet terms. The gloves will come off and he's not going to be able to handle it. He'll make concessions all over the place to get out from under his own fuck ups, with the usual Greek Chorus of skeeves and weasels in the media jeering every step of the way.
I see the Cruz Conundrum has come back around on the wheel. It is a problem for the Trump backer. He's an actual conservative who hasn't waffled and who will fight. But, ew, the whole Christianity thing. And yuck, a lawyer. And he's not "likeable," whatever that is. Not good enough!!
Cruz has been arguing against the mass undocumented importation of feudal labor since well before Trump got on board that bandwagon. He would have had an answer to Anderson Cooper and his weeping over the DREAMERs.
Poll out yesterday - THE only person in the entire race with negatives higher than Hillary - - is Trump.
The idea that Trump can win the general slam dunk - that's a yuge gamble.
Cruz actually takes it to Hillary. (the only other person to do that was Rand) Do you really think Trump will? I don't. Yeah he showed some spark when Hillary called him a sexist, but since then it's been all quiet on the western front.
DBQ, Again, no conservative President was there. We finally have the chance to have one again after all this time, and with relatively conservative houses of congress. Trump would have given you all that stuff, and amnesty, which he supported, and single payer health care which he supported, and on and on. You only have to look at what his positions were when all that happened. He was on board with it or worse, and supporting and hobnobbing with the people who did it. He's still there! He is and has always been exactly what you are angry about. And don't give me that Trooper NY values stuff about him doing what he had to for his business. They all do it for their "business", if THEIR "business" comes first.
Conservative values are what they are. Just because a person is a Republican or calls themselves a Conservative doesn't make them one, but sticking to the values despite threats, temptations, greed, or anger does. It was a long thoughtful journey getting here, and I'm staying put. Trump is not the only one who the GOPe hates, and they only hate him because he's embarrassing. That's the least of his downsides.
Carly took on Hillary, too. She and Rand are outta there because that's not what we're focused on in this primary, at least not so far. We're waging internecine war (thankfully, so are they).
Wanna piss off the gope? Consider voting for Cruz. Proven track record of seriously pissing off the gope. (Last time the Cruz Conundrum came up this was counted against him, that his past history of pissing off the gope would make it difficult for him to work across the aisle, in the spirit of statesmanship and brotherly love etc etc to "get things done" blah blah blah unlike Trump.)
Suicide, sulfuric acid colon cleanse. Not really a difference with a distinction. Just my perspective.
I just recently read the Manchester biography of Douglas MacArthur. He was far more popular in the Phillipines and Japan than he ever was in the USA. The left likes to portray him as a fascist, but in his proconsulship of those countries, he was far more liberal and merciful than the New Deal braint trust. The liberals wanted to hang Filipinos who collaborated with the Japanese, Japanese industrialists, and the Emperor himself. MacArthur ixnaxed all that. The Flipinos were thus able to defeat the Huk Commies, and MacArthur was able to leverage the reverence for the Emperor of Japan into a successful occupation of that land. It is perhaps worth noting that of all the WWII commanders, he was the only one who expressed a reticence and reluctance to bomb civilian populations to gain tactical advantage.........MacArthur said and did a number of ill advised things, but, on balance, he was a far greater man the liberals would have you believe.......I have no enthusiasm for Trump, but I'm sure that even in the things he's wrong about, he's closer to the truth than Hillary and Bernie.
That's what people like about The Donald. He stands the PC crowd on its head and all of Uncle Saul's Rules mean nothing anymore. He is the Lefties' worst nightmare.
A Republican who doesn't want to be nice.
AprilApple said...
Trump and Trumpsters have one goal: Burn it down.
Funny, I thought that was the Cruzzers' motto.
Poll out yesterday
Lots of polls. Hillary is the only one so unpopular in her own party, they have to ignore their own voters to hand her enough delegates to win.
PS Cruz has burned so many bridges behind him, if elected, he'll be reduced to issuing executive orders that will go unfunded by Congress.
PPS Have any of the Cruzzers realized Trump's negatives are so high because he's known and some just don't like him from his TV show? Have they realized the media hasn't gone to work on Cruz yet?
Just a few samples of what is in store.
no conservative President was there
That part is totally immaterial. The President doesn't make laws...or isn't supposed to do so. It is CONGRESS that is important. We gave the House to the GOP. Nada. We gave the Senate to the GOP....nada again. The GOP had the Presidency, the House and the Senate and they did NOTHING.
Even worse, they didn't even try to pass the bills that they promised. Their excuse. Well...Obama would veto them anyway so....we won't even bother.
If they won't do their jobs, then why do we even bother to elect them. Again. This is a rebellion and a big middle finger to the good ole boys club.
I would vote for Cruz. But he won't be able to get anything done because the GOPe will still be as useless as tits on a boar. We can't always get everything we want, but by GOD, we can try to get something done.
If Trump even just enforces the immigration laws that we have now, that would be a huge accomplishment and improvement. If he can get those useless cowards in Congress to pass some reforms that would be great.
DBQ makes some good points.
It's an issue of the ideologue versus the pragmatist.
Cruz puts me off for several reasons, although my attitude toward Trump is a bit like Troop's, only with more reservations.
If Cruz gets the nod, I'll vote for him. Hillary would be that bad. and maybe looney to boot.
Consider someone who can't even win her own nomination.
bagoh20 said: After learning and watching them all, I'm leaning toward the only true conservative in the field, and since there is clearly only one, I don't even have to say who it is. We all know.
Well that's good to hear. You were beginning to remind me of The Crack EmCee back in 2012 when he wouldn't stop dissing Romney without ever telling us who he was "for."
Donald Trump is no Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan could actually - you know- communicate. With words and stuff.
Trump is communicating with words and stuff. He's just communicating a message of rightful discontent and disappointment with a party that has let itself and the country down. It went full bore with the "do nothing" message that those to whom it would appeal and at least want "some things" competently done are pissed. Reagan could send a fuzzy message of nice, warm sunrises and rainbows, but that's because his ideas were new and untested. Once his party proved that it couldn't even achieve its own stated priorities, however - let alone translate them into national popularity, that's when a message of halcyon Reaganism is no longer doing anyone any good.
This is why I love Trump. This is what he tweeted:
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
I wonder if President Obama would have attended the funeral of Justice Scalia if it were held in a Mosque? Very sad that he did not go!
11:42 AM - 20 Feb 2016
8,007 8,007 Retweets 17,483 17,483 likes
It is laughable to think that Cruz or Rubio or Bush are going to do anything different.
Damn straight.
The issue in this campaign - no matter what party - is do you support political careerism? Or do you support a competent set of actions?
Anyone who doesn't see that Cruz is at least as much a careerist as Rubio or Bush OR Clinton is... well... let's just say I feel sorry for them. The guy's only strength is his mouth. He's as gifted a lawyerly demagogue as they come, and all his sense of power comes NOT from what he has gotten or would get done, but the rhetorical power behind saying it.
Face it, the guy is simply a right-wing Obama. He who talk much, saying nothing.
Trump talks a good game, but let's be honest - he values getting something done a hell of a lot more than Cruz or any of the others.
Cruz knows - like most GOP elites know - that actually achieving the things they campaign on deprives them of the opportunity to campaign against them. And the permanent campaign is the only way for an establishment elite to stay in the game.
bagoh20 said: After learning and watching them all, I'm leaning toward the only true conservative in the field, and since there is clearly only one, I don't even have to say who it is. We all know.
Bags, it looks like your man Bush just quit. Just wanted you to know that our tent is extra large, and tat you're always welcome.
We are only voting for President, but Trumpmania so overpowers reason in some people that they are actually expecting this election to change the congress, the power structure, the Constitution, and the magnetic poles of the Earth, and of course that will all work out wonderfully too. This fanciful wishful thinking pretends that the rest of the population (probably a majority) and all their power and influence will just lie down and accept whatever you imagine will happen without any resistance or forcing compromises.
Admitting that you have no idea what he will do, but that you think it will be great should tell you something about your reasoning and decision making on this one subject, and I bet you don't decide anything else in your life this way. I think that's because you consider this some kind of game, a TV show, a popularity poll, and don't really take the result seriously. Can you honestly say that you would hire someone for any position that directly affected your life and your family in a serious way with this kind of carelessness?
"Bags, it looks like your man Bush just quit"
That's great!, but what have I ever said that makes you think he was my man. I never wanted him from day one. I questioned the reason for the unhinged hatred for the man, but I never supported him. There must be some kind of mind altering substance going around in this forum.
@Bags: I would think that you'd be for a businessman with no real political experience. Trump at said tonight that he intends to put real business people in charge of business affairs (whether they would do so is of course another matter).
Is it because you don't trust yourself and therefore don't trust Trump?
That's great!, but what have I ever said that makes you think he was my man.
Just teasing. I knew you weren't into Bush.
bagoh20 said...We are only voting for President, but Trumpmania so overpowers reason in some people that they are actually expecting this election to change the congress, the power structure, the Constitution, and the magnetic poles of the Earth, and of course that will all work out wonderfully too.
Some people still think we're voting for a furor.
(whether they would do so is of course another matter)
I mean, conflicts of interest and all.
That's great!, but what have I ever said that makes you think he was my man. I never wanted him from day one. I questioned the reason for the unhinged hatred for the man, but I never supported him. There must be some kind of mind altering substance going around in this forum.
The "substance" you are thinking of is called "accountability", but apparently you think only losers should require that of the people they'd be hiring.
Some people favoring the establishment want in power whomever can get paid the most for doing the least.
They want "politician welfare".
I think it's time to end politician welfare as we know it.
Others would like to entrench it.
I'd love more businessmen running things, but businessmen are not all alike. I don't want the founders of Ben and Jerry's or Bernie Madoff running things just because they are so called "businessmen".
As I've said before - and I'll show my work if you want - Trump is not a particularly good businessman either. I bet everyone in here has managed a better return on their inheritance than the Donald has. Do you want a businessman who is worse at his core competency than you are at his core competency? His main talent is getting people to buy into his own hype, often at their expense. That's how business bankruptcies happen of the kind he's famously managed. They just believed in him. Sound familiar?
The only one with even a plausible claim to governing well is Kasich.
The rest have a core competency of campaigning, which to some people is synonymous with governing.
Let's hear it for the Establishment! Yeay! Campaigners in Chief for America forever!
What Bags is saying, in short, is that he wants a Republican Obama. A great campaigner who does nothing constructive once he's in office, collecting his politician's welfare check and gaining influence with lobbyists and the graft machine. And fame!
Make no mistake. That's exactly what the establishment wants.
Ritmo, as always, misses the point.
A Senator or Congressman can make a claim to governing well if the legislation he supports is good for the country. Neither Rubio nor Cruz can make that claim.
Kasich has done some good for OH in helping reverse unemployment, but he's jacked up the sales tax and earned the sobriquet of "Obama Republican".
Not a very "plausible claim to governing well".
Trump has certainly managed a financial empire for many years, so he's got a great deal of administrative experience and fiscal know-how.
Carson is an eminent man, a true American success story, accomplished in his field.
But is that enough to run the country?
A Senator or Congressman can make a claim to governing well if the legislation he supports is good for the country. Neither Rubio nor Cruz can make that claim.
I'm sure no one agrees with that first part but I won't argue with you on the second one.
Kasich has done some good for OH in helping reverse unemployment, but he's jacked up the sales tax and earned the sobriquet of "Obama Republican".
No one said he was perfect, let alone "ideologically/partisan perfect", which is a stupid bar by which to measure someone's record, anyway.
How's 'bout raising the cost of living?
Is that a proposal?
Why is it so hard for you to say anything directly?
Ritmo weasels once again.
His, "No one said he was perfect", means he understands my concern about the cost of living in OH was no proposal, but an objection to Ritmo's idiotic assertion about a "plausible claim to governing well", not to mention the "ideologically/partisan perfect" nonsense, since he's fine with partisan Democrats.
And he, of course assumes (we all know where that gets him) that everyone goes along with his nonsensical proposition that the idea of a Senator or Congressman doing his job well is not governing well.
But, considering the corrupt mess that is the Democrat Party right now, I don't blame him for wanting to misdirect everyone's attention.
I don't even understand what you're trying to say.
Can you feed that into Google Translate or something?
In sum, Ritmo surrenders.
A homo says "what?"
I surrender to your incomprehensible use of the English language and basic dialogue.
You are very good at reading people. And by "reading," I mean, you stand over them and read a script while declaring what it is that they must somehow think.
It's like attending conference in a kangaroo court.
Pity you're not more influential.
How's 'bout raising the cost of living?"
Nothing will do that faster and more comprehensive than tariffs and trade wars, but they do have the added sweetener of causing widespread unemployment if you're into that kind of thing. But maybe this time it will be different than all the other times it was tried. Hope and change. Well, hope anyway. The change is purely rhetorical.
Nothing will do that faster and more comprehensive than tariffs and trade wars, but they do have the added sweetener of causing widespread unemployment if you're into that kind of thing.
And, nothing like open borders for lowering standards of living.
There has to be a middle ground.
There has to be a middle ground."
Yea, neither open borders nor trade wars. Unfortunately, we have to burn it down. You know, like Ferguson, MO. You don't like the way things go, you get but hurt, you blame the system, not your own lazy choices in leaders, and so you burn it down.
Damn, that cold, bags.
AprilApple said...Cruz actually takes it to Hillary. (the only other person to do that was Rand)
Sheesh, what about Carly? She focused so much on Hillary that I think it hurt her.
Trump's short circuit to the anger electrode combined with the media's exploitation of the same pushed out everybody else and any real substantive discussion of our future direction at a time when the opportunity for real change was at hand, but we are not done with the process yet. There is still time to think past the anger.
Bago, what is your logic that Cruz or Rubio, backbench senators, young and hungry, would do better than Trump at running the country? Also, they're both hawks. Trump strikes me as someone who would have a common sense foreign policy, and stand up better, mano a mano, to Putin and other leaders, than those two youngsters. Nite.
''
The existential threat of losing one's gardener or maid will decide this election.
Kelly Osbourne said so.
I'd bet on Trump to win the nomination, and the chances of his beating Hillary--presuming she's able to stay in--are also pretty good. Even if he turns out to be a failure, he will be a far more entertaining failure than Hillary. Hillary is a slow leak. If Trump flames out, it will be more like a NASCAR crash and much more exciting to watch. His campaign to date has been the best reality tv show ever. He can definitely produce a fine reality tv show. Let's hope he handles reality with the same panache.
Deb, I think that Rubio and Cruz are both too young and inexperienced, but that's who is running. I don't know that they would be better on foreign affairs, except that Trump has shown an inability to express any coherent strategy. He seems to act impulsively and without thinking. And since he'll say anything, I have no idea what he would actually do
My ideology is libertarian except for foreign affairs where I'm a hawk too. I think we are and must remain the world's policemen. The world has shrunk dramatically. It's all our back yard now, and it's not realistic to believe that if it's out of control that we will be safe or prosperous here, unless we all want to go back to 19th century lifestyles.
With that ideology, I'm pretty much left with those two guys, and Cruz is far more libertarian, and the most likely to shrink government. Cruz and Trump seem to be saying much the same thing on foreign affairs, it's all just talk, but Cruz has at least a short record of keeping his commitments and maintaining his heading even when it's politically unpopular. I simply trust Cruz the most, I think he's the smartest, and by far the best on my key issues: shrinking government, and following the Constitution. I wish he was more experienced and better looking, but I think he would be the most conservative President in my lifetime, even more than Reagan. I want that. Every election of my lifetime since Reagan, the bitching on the right has been that we put up candidates that are not really conservatives. I never really believed that. I think conservative would have lost anyway unless it was an amazing communicator like Reagan, but this time the Dems have blown it with Hillary, and there is a chance again. I have to admit that it's not likely at this point that Cruz will be it, but although he is too young to know for sure, I think he'd be just what I want in the job.
I forgot about Carly. I adore Carly. Anyone who takes it to Hillary - boom - Instant love from me.
Trump has expressed an appreciation for Putin's taking names and kicking butt in Syria. As far as his shooting from the hip, I've read there are four personality type (the two I'll mention were from a book based on Myers-Briggs personality test). One is like me, a global thinker. I have to have all the info to make a decision, process it, etc., and then I never do make a damn quilt because there are so many variables :)
The second type is someone like an engineer running a power plant. When things go south, as well as understanding the plant inside out, they need a snapshot of the situation, and will intuitively grasp the situation and come to the decision in a lightning flash.
I'm not saying Trump is the second type, but he may be. He doesn't appear to be a hawk, as much as he resents Bush II for mismanaging the war. Because it was not the going to Iraq that messed us up, but the mind-boggling idiocy of how they handled the aftermath, for which google Coalition Provisional Authority. Of Bremer and his top people and advisors, none were Arabists (experts about the region) and none spoke Arabic.
And generally speaking, there is also the depleted uranium, solvents, and massive amounts of other poisons we have built up in the region.
I'm not a hawk, and I can easily see Cruz being as bad as Hillary in effing things up due to his personality profile; abrasive and inflexible
I have no problem with being one of the world's policemen, but we need to start sharing the burden with Russia and China. I'm pro-Shia, pro Iran, Lebanon, Syria. I think we should work with Putin to curb Sunni radicalism, as it is in his interests to do so, as there is much of it in his back yard. Ditto China with the Sunni populations on their eastern border.
I think we should work with China to share the sea lanes, to the point where they are basically in charge of the South China Sea. It is not in their interest to hog it, so let them manage it, as it is in their back yard.
If Cruz is actually a Christian, and not using it to get elected, IIRC he's backing a bill that would put restriction on access to abortion. If it passes, it would possibly leave the second largest state with six abortion clinics. Must dash.
Cruz will lose to Hillary, in my estimation.
I assume that the labels you adhere to confuse you, not me. I don't need to follow some party or ideology to the letter on all issues like a lemming.
It is possible to be small government and still big on defense, because that's the way the Constitution and logic defines the nation. The first function of the American government is defense, because nothing else matters without it. Unlike Europe and much of the world we can only count on ourselves for our protection. Like all government, defense is wasteful,and needs constant reigning in, but it seems to be the only area that ever gets it. Defense spending as a % of GDP has been historically low since the 70's, and dropping. It is not the source of our budget problems, despite being the most important sector of spending. It's existential important, and not just for us, but most of the world.
I assume that the labels you adhere to confuse you, not me.
The "labels" are defined by descriptions that you, yourself, offered. No one who voluntarily calls themselves a "hawk," in 2016, after a decade of what we've learned from and experienced in the Middle East, is interested in a sensible defense policy that emphasizes (as any sensible defense policy would) restraint as the first priority, and intervention only after all other options are exhausted and ONLY when vital strategic interests are threatened. The further away from us it is the less vital our strategic interest.
I don't need to follow some party or ideology to the letter on all issues like a lemming.
The ideologies you are following to the letter are what is dangerous, regardless of who or what party endorses them.
It is possible to be small government and still big on defense,
Nonsense.
..because that's the way the Constitution and logic defines the nation.
That was inarticulate.
If what you meant to say is that the constitution specifies "big" defense, I'd like you to quote the part of the constitution that says so. Where is the word "big" in the constitution, let alone in relation to defense?
For nearly 150 years our military was fleet, as evidenced by how long it took the union to raise adequate troop forces in the civil war, our reluctance to enter wars on the scale that the Europeans were used to fighting them - i.e. WWI, and how long it took us to ramp up industrial military production in WWII to pose an actual challenge to the threat we faced.
It is no coincidence at all that the military industrial complex begun under FDR and continued indefinitely marked the turn toward a presidency of imperial powers at home as well as abroad. It is folly to pretend that a government will only become big enough to threaten everyone in the world, but no one at home, let alone their liberties. Absolutely ludicrous folly.
The first function of the American government is defense, because nothing else matters without it.
Who cares? No one's saying to get rid of it. They're saying to put in on the diet requested by the Pentagon and stop feeding its bloated contractor appetite with your imperialist ("hawkish") thinking, with multiple consecutive tours for all enlisted.
Unlike Europe and much of the world we can only count on ourselves for our protection.
That's their problem. You're essentially admitting that you want us to be Europe's protectorate. You want them to rely on us for security welfare.
It's existential important, and not just for us, but most of the world.
Most of the world needs to learn to do a better job defending itself. The rest of the world does not need to be a security welfare recipient sucking us dry. But they will gladly agree to it if that's what you're offering them, which it seems that you are.
I say it's fine for us to be the defense of first resort for the rest of the world, if those "rests" of the world are willing to pay for it. Let them pay their 39% to Uncle Sam directly, and then we can raise forces adequate enough to be their "policeman", according to your request. Enough already.
Post a Comment