A gift from Laurie...
This govt is too big topic bores me so I am going to throw in a link for what I find interesting:
Chart of the Day: Donald Trump's Deficit Busting Budget Plan
So have you decided between Trump and Clinton yet? What do you think of Trump's invitation for Russia to interfere with our election?
47 comments:
I tried to change things up by discussing fat / thin shaming, but no one bit...
No I have not made up my mind either way. The good news is that it does not matter which way I go since I live in MN.
Unfortunately my sense of humor may be a bit like Trumps, therefore I did not care about his find Clinton's intentionally deleted emails comment.
CRFB Report
Politco Trumps New Tax Plan
Forbes GOP Tax Plan
Trump wasn't joking about Russia and the e-mails, though. Fortunately for him, though, he made that comment which has completely overshadowed the truly outrageous thing he floated that he was willing to recognize Russian control over Crimea. That, combined with his comments on not necessarily defending NATO allies, puts a giant flashing "Invade Us" sign over the Baltics.
I am so puzzled... Do Liberals care about other countries or not?
Usually it seems they want to withdraw from the world, reduce defense spending and focus on domestic policies... I would think many of them would agree with Trump to exit NATO and let the world fend for itself.
Why are you so unable to understand anything that can't be boiled down to a stereotype or a pithy anecdote?
Probably because of all the grief the Bushes got for going to the aid of an ally. (Kuwait) And eliminating an enemy of the USA and Israel. (Saddam Hussein)
Probably because of the non-stop, "The US military is too large, we should use that money to feed single parent families, pay for free tuition and healthcare" chanting...
How can you deny that most Liberals want to focus domestically?
Liberals want us to act intelligently in the world. George H.W. Bush didn't go to Baghdad in 1991 because he knew that occupying Iraq would be a disaster. His son ignored that advice (and the advice of some of his generals, like Gen. Shinseki) and made one of the most disastrous foreign policy decisions in our nation's history.
And if you're confused about Democratic party foreign policy, how the heck do you explain what's going on in your party?
Nothing Donald says is worth anything in terms of analyzing it for meaning. He really understands nothing about politics or government. He uses words to provoke a reaction, not to convey any substantive meaning. he is so difficult to respond to, because there is no there, there.
I think there are polls that show a majority of Americans think our country is on the wrong track. Given that we are a nation that takes Donald Trump seriously, it's hard to disagree with that majority.
--Hiram
Bush unfortunately had 3 bad choices...
1. Maintain the No Fly Zones indefinitely and hope for the internal coup. Which would have led to similar sectarian violence and may have given Iran control over Iraq.
2. Walk away. Let Saddam regain power and take vengeance on all the Kurds and Shiites who had been trying to over throw him during the Bush and Clinton Presidencies.
3. Invade. Remove Saddam's gov't and help the people form a new government.
I guess he could have passed this hot potato on to Obama like Clinton did to him. Instead he dealt with it.
No, those weren't the only three choices. But thanks for ducking the pertinent question.
I think the GOP for the most part supports a strong volunteer military and using it when there is a US concern in the region and people in the region are down trodden.
I personally have a hard time thinking of Trump as a member of the GOP. He seems too Liberal and erratic. That is why I think he will pull some votes from the Democrats. Maybe those folks who liked him in the Apprentice.
Sorry I was interrupted by work while responding...
What other choices do you think he had?
Please remember that Clinton had that tiger by the tail for 8 years...
"What other choices do you think he had?"
Here's one of many possible options: You could have allowed the UN inspectors -- who were back on the ground prior to the invasion -- to continue to do their work. If Iraq failed to let them do their work, you could have extended the no-fly zone to cover the entire country or engaged in targeted air strikes against suspected WMD sites and other military targets. (Let's not forget that in the final analysis, it was the UN not the US that was correct about Saddam's WMD capabilities.)
"Please remember that Clinton had that tiger by the tail for 8 years..."
So what? Sometimes containment is the best strategy.
"I personally have a hard time thinking of Trump as a member of the GOP."
Well, I suggest you face reality.
That was option 1 as described above.
We have been containing North Korea for ~60 years with ~28,000 troops... Not sure we want that happening in multiple locations.
I am interested to see how many GGP votes Trump gets.
"That was option 1 as described above."
No, it's not.
"We have been containing North Korea for ~60 years with ~28,000 troops... Not sure we want that happening in multiple locations."
So should we invade North Korea, then?
John, as you are a person that would consider voting for Trump I am back to thinking your views are too stupid to bother with, so I think I will be taking another break from your blog. I will provide one more link, though, to try to help you understand why Trump is the worst major party presidential nominee ever:
Donald Trump’s nomination is the first time American politics has left me truly afraid
Sean,
Good question. Probably not since our hosts are happy to have us there and the troops serve as a deterrent to China. Please remember that in 2001 the Saudis wanted us out.
But just imagine the cost of having 28,000 troops stationed there for decades...
Laurie,
That wasn't very nice...
Even Trump would be better than having a DFL Congress and President. I am sorry but the continual drift toward North European Socialism worries me more than Trump's bravado. Our children and country simply can not afford it.
I have ~3 months and many debates. I like to keep an open mind.
Laurie, I'm afraid you are believing what liberals, Democrats and the mainstream media have told you about Trump, rather than coming to your own assessment. Had I only the sources you seem to have, I would reach the same conclusion. By listening between the lines and knowing what I know of human nature, I'm actually liking the guy, and thinking he might be a very good President.
Even Trump would be better than having a DFL Congress and President.
There is very little in human experience that wouldn't be better than Trump. The fact that a major American political party has managed to delude itself into taking this guy seriously is the ultimate seriously is the ultimate refutation of Republican dependence on talk radio in lieu of actual thought.
I am proud of my party's candidate for president, and I think it's very sad for our country that members of the other party can't reasonably say the same.
--Hiram
Not sure which is "your party," Hiram, but I will say I am glad Trump is the nominee because Hillary would be a disaster. Can't say I'm proud of Trump, but I don't think that's a necessary part of the job description. He may be the rare bird that is a good candidate (because of his brash, politically incorrect style) AND will also be a good chief executive.
And repeated surveys show that listeners of conservative talk radio are more well-informed.
Let's not forget that Donald Trump went bankrupt four times in the casino industry, a business where the customers literally showed up, handed him cash, and got literally nothing in return. Donald, the famed business executive, was not even able to make sin profitable.
--Hiram
I'm not forgetting. But let us not forget that Hillary made $100,000 in cattle futures she knew nothing about, left the White House "broke" and is now worth 1/2 of $150 million, thanks to speaking fees of $250,000 an hour. Of course, if she can do such magic with the revenue side of the US budget, our problems are over.
As well informed as Republicans might be, they have managed to nominate for themselves a candidate for president who is less informed himself than a sixth grader who is a casual reader of "The Weekly Reader".
While George Orwell did write "Ignorance is Strength", it's so important to know and understand that he was being ironic, or in Trumpian terms "sarcastic" and that he didn't really mean it.
--Hiram
It's easy enough to disagree with various policies of government, but that's not the same as waste. No investment entity in the world is run with anything close as Social Security. And you no what? Unlike any hedge fund out there, not a single SS executive gets paid a half billion dollars a year.
Obamacare is certainly inefficient. But Republicans want it to be efficient. They want it to incorporate the private sector, with it's zillion dollar executive into the system. They want it to be run on a state by state basis. They want to use highly complex tax provisions to fund it. In this, as in so much Republican strongly support policy goals that they strongly oppose doing anything to reach. The Republican Party has become a political oxymoron.
--Hiram
Yes this going to be an ugly 3 months. 2 candidates with so many skeletons in their closets...
I was explaining the good news to my daughter... Since MN is not a battle ground state, we will probably not be forced to watch thousands of TV ads where both side stoop to lower and lower depths.
Trump is a post truth candidate. His public statements aren't intended to convey a meaning capable of being true or false. For him words are weapons to be used to brutalize people he sees as the weak into submission. The stick or the stone wielded by a bully on schoolyard is no more or less truthful than Trump's language.
--Hiram
A comic of long ago, Flip Wilson, had a line: "A lie is as good as the truth if you can get somebody to believe it." Trump doesn't have to do that at all. The things he says are mostly things people already believe, or are willing to believe. He can also capitalize on the belief most people have that establishment politicians, more specifically Democrats, and most specifically Hillary have been lying through their teeth for years.
Perhaps it is more accurate to call him the "post lie" candidate.
And John, I'm not sure your hopes are warranted. "Both sides" engage in negative campaigning, but it is severely one-sided since Democrats have only that one tool in their campaign toolbox. And when Republicans get accused of "going negative" it is usually because they've told the truth about some Democrat. Classic projection on their part.
I don't think people believe the things Trump says. They understand that his words are not intended to convey meaning and are therefore neither true nor false. That's why his "lies" don't hurt him. Literal minded folks who consider the substance of what people say just aren't Trump's constituency.
Consider the huge things Trump says and people repeat. There is a claim that Trump is not an establishment politician. Has there been any politician more enmeshed in politics, particularly the politics of New York City? And if he isn't an establishment player, is that really due to a want of trying? Desperate as Trump always has been to be taken seriously, to the extent Donald isn't part of the establishment, it's because the establishment has been burned by him way too often, and isn't willing to deal with him further. I mean this is a guy who couldn't make money from gambling, an industry where the customers hand the owners cash and receive nothing in return. Trump wasn't even able to make sin profitable.
--Hiram
Unfortunately both sides seem to have few tools...
GOP: Cut taxes, Keep programs, Increase Debt
DFL: Raise taxes, Spend more, Increase Debt...
Both are bad for our kids.
If the campaigns were based on those ideas, regardless of merit, that would be a welcome and positive development, but they aren't. It is one long string of one candidate telling us-- actually, warning us in low voices accompanied by ominous music-- what the OTHER candidate has done or will do. It is the high art form of deceitful character assassination. Don't tell me what my candidate will do-- let him tell me-- and you tell me what you will do. Then I can decide which idea I like better and what degree of truthiness to assign to each.
The Republicans often make the mistake of trying to run on issues, as if the best ideas win elections. That's not even close. Democrats know that it is the "politics of personal destruction" that carries the day, and they practice it with utmost fury.
You have got to be kidding.
Trump is the king of one thing..
Attacking others, name calling and opening his mouth before thinking.
I felt for his campaign manager when he had avoid discussing Trump's stupidity of going after the mother of a war hero. How can this man be so obtuse. And is going to vote for him.
That was and... Who is going to vote for him?
The other classic was when Trump went after Cruz for not endorsing him and telling people to vote their convictions. Really...
Is this guy a toddler?
Trump doesn't seem to understand that "punching down" is not an attractive trait.
That is what is so frustrating.
I understand being aggressive when it makes sense and the threat is real... I mean Reagan did that excellently.
But this impulse that Trump has to go after anyone who disagrees with him is sadly almost comical. Anyone can set him up so easily.
Instead of attacking the Mom and Dad, he could have just explained that the Khan's came from the UAE and would have been allowed in. Instead he blows it up and gives Khan more press time.
An interesting twist. American Thinker
Please quote where Trump was "attacking the Mom and Dad." It was quite clear that Dad was attacking Trump in highly partisan and untrue ways, and it has since become clear WHY he did it, for vested interest. And the double standard compared to the Benghazi Mom at the RNC is just breathtakingly obvious.
"And the double standard compared to the Benghazi Mom at the RNC is just breathtakingly obvious."
Did Hillary attack the "Benghazi Mom"? Perhaps I missed that?
Joel
No, but her surrogates did. And did Trump attack Khizr Kahn? I keep waiting for the exact quote or quotes and haven't heard them. It sounds to me like some media meme made up out of whole cloth.
In other words, it's completely different than Trump's lost argument with the Khans.
Joel
You question a gold star family's sacrifices, you attack them. It's quite simple really.
Joel
I'm still waiting for the exact quote that constitutes this so-called "attack." I want to know how it differs in any substantial way from the attacks on Pat Smith for "politicizing" the death of her son in Benghazi, other than that the Khans are deeply invested in the Democrat Party and the Smiths weren't generally political, but spoke to Republicans.
Post a Comment