Kasich Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My criticism of Kasich’s alleged “Pro-Life” stand.

It seems all politicians call themselves “Pro-life” along the line somewhere.

But when you look closely at what these NON-Pro-life politicians assert, you find there ARE TIMES when THEY THINK it is OK to directly will the destruction and killing of an innocent life.

We all saw Jeb Bush in the debates voice his approval of Government allowing abortion in “cases of rape and incest”.

Bush called the approval of these types of killings . . . "the sweet spot."

Yet Jeb Bush would refer to himself as “Pro-Life”.

John Kasich likewise calls himself “Pro-life”.

But Kasich ALSO thinks it is licit to allow the destruction and killing of an INNOCENT LIFE in the cases of rape and incest.

You can see it in his own words for yourself here

youtube.com/watch?v=q8pi939FQXk
(see at 5:30-5:35).

In the first debate Kasich told Americans that favor Traditional Marriage to get over it, while bragging about himself attending a same-sex “marriage”.

I might refer to John Kasich as a lot of things, but I do NOT refer to Kasich as “Pro-life”.

Just my thoughts.

God bless.

Cathoholic
 
In the first debate Kasich told Americans that favor Traditional Marriage to get over it, while bragging about himself attending a same-sex “marriage”.
Another reason not to like Kasich. I have heard his war plans for Ukraine, but I haven’t heard him talk about supporting the peace process in Ukraine.
 
Another reason not to like Kasich. I have heard his war plans for Ukraine, but I haven’t heard him talk about supporting the peace process in Ukraine.
I think that assessment is accurate Tomdstone.

I was worried in the Feb. 6th New Hampshire debate when Kasich started to talk about using Japan as a front to go to war with a Nuclear North Korea!

The North Korans that were aided in getting nuclear capability by Bill Clinton (“Thanks a lot”).

It reminds me of the “leading from behind” interventionism we watched in Libya with all the unfortunate fallout from that, not only in Benghazi and Libya as a whole, but disarray from our Mid-East policy elsewhere that has not been fruitful. (So much for the “Arab Spring”)

Now earlier tonight North Korea has launched MORE test missiles (see here for example).

The other issue I had with the Kasich performance at the New Hampshire debate on this issue was Kasich’s incoherence.

It was VERY difficult to know what Kasich is trying to say on any issue but especially here (he frequently leaves me wondering WHAT in the world he just said).

I’ll put up the transcript of Kasich’s answer on North Korea from Feb. 6th and you can tell me what you think.
 
Martha Raddatz asked several Republican Primary candidates including Kasich the same question on North Korea (from Feb. 6, 2016).

Here is the question and answer (with minor formatting changes mine) . . .

RADDATZ: Well, let me ask you this, if you were Commander in Chief tonight would you have order (sic) the U.S. military to destroy that missile preemptively on the launchpad to prevent North Korea from becoming an even graver threat?

. . . . RADDATZ: . . . I will say that missile has been sitting there for quite some time, and they have had eyes on it.

. . . . RADDATZ: . . . I’m talking about a preemptive strike on the launch pad.

Raddatz continues . . . .

Governor Kasich, how would you respond to tonight’s launch?

KASICH: Well, we’ve got to to step up the pressure.

And by the way, I’ve gotta say, after being here, every one of my 100 town hall meetings in New Hampshire were a lot more fun than what I saw here today, were so much more positive.

???

KASICH: Look, in terms of North Korea, Martha, we have to make sure that we intercept both the ships and their aircraft, because what they’re trying to do is to proliferate this very dangerous material, along with the – with the technology, the instruments that can be used for mass destruction.

Aside from the fact that Raddatz was asking about the launchpad, intercepting ships and aircraft of course can be considered an act of war.

Now Kasich goes into NON-State “actors” instead of addressing the North Korean state (presumably ISIS but who knows for sure WHAT “non-state actors” Kasich means) . . . .

KASICH: That’s what I worry about the most, frankly, is non-state actors, people who don’t have a uniform, people don’t have a country, who can spread this, who are not subject to the – to the mutual assured defense. In other words, you strike us, we strike you.

Now Kasich is going to talk about his feelings and his family and finish it off by saying we need to be “tough”.

KASICH: Some of these radicals, they don’t care about that. That’s what I worry about, for my children, and for their children, going forward. So, we have to be very tough.

Now Kasich tries to address the China issue (because North Korea is a close ally of China’s if we attack North Korea in this case, China may treat it as an attack on itself! So strategically we would need to be very cautious about pre-emptive strikes in this reason. American interests would have to be sky high to risk war with the Chinese, and face a nuclear attack from North Korea

(Again a big question mark to President Bill Clinton and Robert Gallucci for aiding and abetting the proverbial green light to North Korean nuclear capability – here. Much the same thing that may NOW be going on with President Obama and Iran and their nuclear capability in the Mideast incidentally)

Kasich goes on . . . .

KASICH: And we should tell the Chinese, look, if you’re not going to do this ballistic missile defense to the Koreans, ballistic missile defense to Japan – and by the way, we should impose the same kind of sanctions on North Korea that we imposed on Iran, because they’re able to shift money. They’re able to send money and receive money.

(BELL RINGS)

KASICH: We’ve gotta to be very tough on this.

Then Kasich says something absolutely bizarre. Kasich says “we could have let the Japanese know that if you want to take action on that”.

I’m not sure what Kasich means but it sounds like he wants the Japanese making the ultimate decision here on an issue that could very much directly affect the USA!

KASICH: And frankly, I think we could have – I think we could have let the Japanese know that if you want to take action on that – on that missile that’s rising, you want to take action – you will have our support, if that’s what you think is the best thing to do.

Then Kasich finishes with something nobody is going to disagree with. Kasich says “we can’t be weak”.

But nobody is asking that the USA “be weak”. Raddatz just wanted to know if you would launch a preemptive strike on the missile launchpad.

Here’s how Kasich finishes . . .

KASICH: We cannot continue to be weak in the face of the North Koreans, or, frankly, in the entire rest of the world.

Martha, this is – this is the – relates…

RADDATZ: Thank you, Governor Kasich. Thank you – thank you…

Kasich is a guy with very puny numbers, no mathematical chance of winning the nomination outright, admits reluctantly to favoring ABORTION exceptions, and who is being heavily funded by social agitator George Soros and his minions (see here if interested).

You look at all of this, and you’ve gotta ask yourself WHY is Kasich even in the Presidential race??
 
My criticism of Kasich’s alleged “Pro-Life” stand.

It seems all politicians call themselves “Pro-life” along the line somewhere.

But when you look closely at what these NON-Pro-life politicians assert, you find there ARE TIMES when THEY THINK it is OK to directly will the destruction and killing of an innocent life.

We all saw Jeb Bush in the debates voice his approval of Government allowing abortion in “cases of rape and incest”.

Bush called the approval of these types of killings . . . "the sweet spot."

Yet Jeb Bush would refer to himself as “Pro-Life”.

John Kasich likewise calls himself “Pro-life”.

But Kasich ALSO thinks it is licit to allow the destruction and killing of an INNOCENT LIFE in the cases of rape and incest.

You can see it in his own words for yourself here

youtube.com/watch?v=q8pi939FQXk
(see at 5:30-5:35).

In the first debate Kasich told Americans that favor Traditional Marriage to get over it, while bragging about himself attending a same-sex “marriage”.

I might refer to John Kasich as a lot of things, but I do NOT refer to Kasich as “Pro-life”.

Just my thoughts.

God bless.

Cathoholic
Besides not being pro-life, he’s also divorced and remarried.
 
… the fact that he needs 104% of the remaining delegates to get to 1237?
Do you see your goal with getting behind Cruz as winning the election in November or a more long term strategy to save the party, help Republicans down the ballot in November?
 
Do you see your goal with getting behind Cruz as winning the election in November or a more long term strategy to save the party, help Republicans down the ballot in November?
I’m gonna have to say both.

The alternative is something like this: the new outsiders (moderate Republicans) don’t (even begrudgingly) extend Cruz and the Tea Party an olive branch, Trump picks up enough winner take all states to sail far beyond 1,237 delegates, the moderates cement their new “outsider” status by running third party against Clinton/Trump, and the Republican elastic just snaps.
 
I’m gonna have to say both.

The alternative is something like this: the new outsiders (moderate Republicans) don’t (even begrudgingly) extend Cruz and the Tea Party an olive branch, Trump picks up enough winner take all states to sail far beyond 1,237 delegates, the moderates cement their new “outsider” status by running third party against Clinton/Trump, and the Republican elastic just snaps.
The last gasp maneuvering it will take to get Cruz in as nominee will do too much damage; it will divide the party. Not enough voters will get behind him to push him over Hillary. The Republican elastic has already snapped. (I would vote Cruz.)

Trump actually has a better shot at the White House I’m afraid, but we don’t know what he would do; he is unpredictable, a very dangerous irresponsible choice. The Chinese are using the Trump ascendancy as a justification of why they don’t embrace democracy - and you have to admit it is a heck of an argument. Maybe we should elect Trump after all - and just be done with this experiment. 😃

(I take all this back if Cruz catches on and starts winning states.)
 
The last gasp maneuvering it will take to get Cruz in as nominee will do too much damage; it will divide the party. Not enough voters will get behind him to push him over Hillary. The Republican elastic has already snapped. (I would vote Cruz.)

Trump actually has a better shot at the White House I’m afraid, but we don’t know what he would do; he is unpredictable, a very dangerous irresponsible choice. The Chinese are using the Trump ascendancy as a justification of why they don’t embrace democracy - and you have to admit it is a heck of an argument. Maybe we should elect Trump after all - and just be done with this experiment. 😃

(I take all this back if Cruz catches on and starts winning states.)
I’m not sure the Chinese communist party needed Trump in order to maintain their hold on power, and I doubt anybody but Americans would ever believe they did.

Trump might be unpredictable, but there’s no reason to think he’s insane. Ronald Reagan was unpredictable. Remember the “zero option”? That was as unpredictable as unpredictable comes. And many regarded it as irresponsible and dangerous. But he put it on the table in front of Gorbachev. It unnerved Gorbachev, no doubt because he was then caught between looking like a person who wouldn’t give up nuclear arms and telling a big part of his own defense hierarchy that they were out of business. It was a gamble on Reagan’s part, and nobody knows to this day whether Reagan was really willing to do it or whether he was running a bluff in order to destroy the Soviet Union’s negotiating calculus.
 
Trump might be unpredictable, but there’s no reason to think he’s insane.
I propose: I’ll agree that Trump isn’t insane, and you agree that he isn’t someone who should ever be the Republican presidential nominee. Agreed?
 
I’m not sure the Chinese communist party needed Trump in order to maintain their hold on power, and I doubt anybody but Americans would ever believe they did.

Trump might be unpredictable, but there’s no reason to think he’s insane. Ronald Reagan was unpredictable. Remember the “zero option”? That was as unpredictable as unpredictable comes. And many regarded it as irresponsible and dangerous. But he put it on the table in front of Gorbachev. It unnerved Gorbachev, no doubt because he was then caught between looking like a person who wouldn’t give up nuclear arms and telling a big part of his own defense hierarchy that they were out of business. It was a gamble on Reagan’s part, and nobody knows to this day whether Reagan was really willing to do it or whether he was running a bluff in order to destroy the Soviet Union’s negotiating calculus.
I think there is actually a pretty good case that Trump is unstable (if not insane). Anybody who would do what he is doing to the GOP and the country, manipulating voters through veiled racist and xeonphobic comments, inciting violence, not just against protesters at his rallies, but at fellow Republicans if they don’t give him the nomination, qualifies as extremely, dangerously irrational. He is point by point the opposite of Ronald Reagan, everything that man believed in and stood for. (and I am cutting him some slack there, assuming he has informed political opinions - just for the sake of argument; I don’t personally believe that)

I predict we have full blown demonstrations in the streets, with violence this election, both pro and anti-Trump. 1968.
 
Another reason not to like Kasich. I have heard his war plans for Ukraine, but I haven’t heard him talk about supporting the peace process in Ukraine.
This was one of my big concerns. When he outlined his ideas on boots on the ground and occupation troops in about 4 different hotspot areas as well as other “overly hawkish” comments, this is when he lost me. Good point about a Ukraine peace initiative. I hadn’t heard his comments on the same sex marriage issue but that further affirms my assessment of him as someone I would not want to see as president.
 
The last gasp maneuvering it will take to get Cruz in as nominee will do too much damage; it will divide the party. Not enough voters will get behind him to push him over Hillary. The Republican elastic has already snapped. (I would vote Cruz.)

Trump actually has a better shot at the White House I’m afraid, but we don’t know what he would do; he is unpredictable, a very dangerous irresponsible choice. The Chinese are using the Trump ascendancy as a justification of why they don’t embrace democracy - and you have to admit it is a heck of an argument. Maybe we should elect Trump after all - and just be done with this experiment. 😃

(I take all this back if Cruz catches on and starts winning states.)
I don’t see Trump as a dangerous choice. I don’t see him as unpredictable and I would rather risk Trump than risk Hillary. Kasich should drop out.
 
I don’t see Trump as a dangerous choice. I don’t see him as unpredictable and I would rather risk Trump than risk Hillary.
Fair enough, but I won’t vote for him - ever. We’ll just have to agree to disagree. 🙂
 
I don’t see Trump as a dangerous choice. I don’t see him as unpredictable and I would rather risk Trump than risk Hillary. Kasich should drop out.
I think that is what it ultimately come down to. Four or eight years under Hillary would be unimaginable. Granted Trump is a wild card of what we might see in his administration. I think we have already seen what Hillary has accomplished in various political positions and in my opinion it was awful. Trump has made a lot of big boasts and whether he can follow through I don’t know. What it does represent is a change in direction of what we have had for at least the last 8 yrs.
 
Kasich should drop out.
I’m listening to him as I type. He just said that he’s ready to drop out. Just kidding. But seriously, possibly the biggest thing I’m taking away from his interview with Chris Matthews is a confirmation that he and Gov. Romney sound very similar, as I thought already.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top