Trump Thread

[Ridgerunner]

I never voted for him, never really liked or hated him while he was in office. When the Iraq war thing went south and he became so insanely unpopular (people were throwing shoes at him at press conferences abroad), I got on the hate bandwagon - well, one thing, Katrina, really did upset me, where he just sat in the airplane and New Orleans basically sank.

In 2008 (actually a year or two earlier) I hopped right on the Obama bandwagon (largely because I sensed he could win; he had star, Kennedy-like appeal - that was pretty much it). But to be honest, I never really understood why we all hated Bush so much. We lost like 4500 people in Iraq, right? A tragedy, yes, of course. Do you know how many people we lost in Vietnam, Korea, WWII? My God. And we tried to re-build Iraq with peaceful men there - we tried so hard not to disrupt civilian life in Iraq or Afghanistan, even during bombing, invasion. Yet everyone acted like Bush was Attila the Hun. It was surreal, Emperor’s new clothes to me - all along - I rarely admit that though. Especially when you look at GOP candidates this time around - he looks pretty darn good.

Bush was, in my belief, a better human being than Trump or Cruz. Whether he was a better administrator than either of them would be is uncertain to me. Bush let congress run wild with pork and rarely opposed it. Cruz, I think, will find himself with a congress that will not be very supportive of him no matter who the congress people turn out to be. Trump might have the ability to manage this nearly unmanageable government…at least to some degree.

Iraq became increasingly unpopular in the same way Vietnam did. The media was quiet about it at first, when it was most popular. Then, as it ground on, the media made him out a monster and the war a product of a lie Bush never told. Might we have won Vietnam had we persevered? Hard to know. Some say yes and some say no; people of some wisdom and knowledge.

As to Iraq, we had it won. Even Obama admitted it and claimed victory for himself. Al Quaeda gave up. ISIS moved its efforts to Syria where opposition was weaker. The Sunni tribal leaders, the Sistani Shia (the majority) and the Kurds all begged us to stay in force longer, to guard the peace. Because Obama promised to exit Iraq, we did, against the advice of the Joint Chiefs, Iraq and Obama’s own CIA chief, all of whom warned him that leaving too soon would turn it over to a war between Iranian-backed Shia and oil state-backed Sunni radicals.

And so it happened, and Bush has had enough class to keep his own comments about the debacle to himself, despite the fact that he could say a great deal about it.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Given the fact that he reversed himself, I don’t know if he revealed his true feelings or not. He did seem to give the appearance that he had never considered the matter until being hit with an unexpected question. Had he been even somewhat familiar with mainstream pro-life organizations, he should have known that advocating punishment for women has always been a pro-abortion ploy, not a pro-life position.

Exactly. Major flub. But this is what we have come to expect from the endless Trump media cycles, right? We praise it as spontaneity, sincerity, breaking all the rules - well, some do, anyway. Others not so much.

(if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…probably not Abraham Lincoln)

 

[chero23]

it will be easy for him to keep his word; first because he would be in the outer darkness with Trump anyway, and secondly because I don’t think his personality allows for forgiving and forgetting.

I wouldn’t forgive trump either. If someone spoke bad about my mom, trust me she’s been an honorable women. I wouldn’t forgive them.

 

[queenofheartscv]

Given the fact that he reversed himself, I don’t know if he revealed his true feelings or not. He did seem to give the appearance that he had never considered the matter until being hit with an unexpected question. Had he been even somewhat familiar with mainstream pro-life organizations, he should have known that advocating punishment for women has always been a pro-abortion ploy, not a pro-life position.

I truly don’t understand this: how punishment of women in any way, shape or form is automatically considered pro-choice not pro-life. This doesn’t make any sense at all to me. I understand compassion and mercy and all that, but if something is wrong, consequences are there. How is even talking about consequences for the woman automatically a pro-abortion ploy?

 

[ATeNumquam]

Have I missed anything or have folks commented already on the resignation of Trump’s strategist Stephanie Cegielski? She wasn’t exactly complimentary in what she said!

 

[Seamus_L]

Even some degree of complicity in what some of us consider to be murder, has to be punishable under the law.

 

[queenofheartscv]

Have I missed anything or have folks commented already on the resignation of Trump’s strategist Stephanie Cegielski? She wasn’t exactly complimentary in what she said!

She was not a trump strategist! She worked for a pro-trump pac, which was altogether denounced by trump because he didn’t want a super pac.

 

[carpenter383]

Trump Campaign Manager: Ted Cruz Had Nothing To Do With Melania Trump Ad

redstate.com/streiff/2016/03/30/trump-campaign-manager-ted-cruz-nothing-nekkid-melania-trump-ad/

 

[JimG]

I truly don’t understand this: how punishment of women in any way, shape or form is automatically considered pro-choice not pro-life. This doesn’t make any sense at all to me. I understand compassion and mercy and all that, but if something is wrong, consequences are there. How is even talking about consequences for the woman automatically a pro-abortion ploy?

As I mentioned previously, punishment of women was not a part of most abortion laws prior to 1973. Given the fact that Roe v Wade made abortion legal through all nine months of pregnancy, and that abortion has now been legal for 43 years, it is the pro-abortion side which now drags out the specter, never before an actuality, of extreme punishment for women. That does have the effect of being an argument for keeping abortion legal.

Not only that, but attend a Rachel’s Vineyard retreat sometime and hear the stories of actual women who have had abortions. They are being punished now by guilt, regret, and suffering. They need healing. It is the pro-life movement which begins such programs for post-abortive women. It is pro-life groups which provide the healing.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m with you QOHCV (save for the fact that I’m pro-choice). If anti-choicers …

Question: are you deliberately trying to get us to disregard what you say??

 

[Exiled_Child]

Please forgive me if this interview has already been posted:

nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us/politics/donald-trump-foreign-policy.html?recp=7&_r=1

**Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential front-runner, said that if elected, he might halt purchases of oil from Saudi Arabia and other Arab allies unless they commit ground troops to the fight against the Islamic State or “substantially reimburse” the United States for combating the militant group, which threatens their stability.

“If Saudi Arabia was without the cloak of American protection,” Mr. Trump said during a 100-minute interview on foreign policy, spread over two phone calls on Friday, “I don’t think it would be around.”

He also said he would be open to allowing Japan and South Korea to build their own nuclear arsenals rather than depend on the American nuclear umbrella for their protection against North Korea and China. If the United States “keeps on its path, its current path of weakness, they’re going to want to have that anyway, with or without me discussing it,” Mr. Trump said.**

It’s a pretty interesting article and interview, in my opinion, although it’s becoming increasingly clear that while Trump’s style and approach to governance would be unusual, he likely wouldn’t change longheld U.S. policy much at all. There’s an immensely powerful and unchanging structure in place which guarantees basic continuity, but within that closed system he might be capable to do some unexpected things.

The article continues at the link.

 

[queenofheartscv]

As I mentioned previously, punishment of women was not a part of most abortion laws prior to 1973. Given the fact that Roe v Wade made abortion legal through all nine months of pregnancy, and that abortion has now been legal for 43 years, it is the pro-abortion side which now drags out the specter, never before an actuality, of extreme punishment for women. That does have the effect of being an argument for keeping abortion legal.

Not only that, but attend a Rachel’s Vineyard retreat sometime and hear the stories of actual women who have had abortions. They are being punished now by guilt, regret, and suffering. They need healing. It is the pro-life movement which begins such programs for post-abortive women. It is pro-life groups which provide the healing.

Ok I understand better now with what you said. But still, it doesn’t have to be extreme punishment. Some form of determent should be acceptable. Criminals of another nature could also convert and feel compunction for what they have done, and yet they face their consequences.

 

[queenofheartscv]

Please forgive me if this interview has already been posted:

nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us/politics/donald-trump-foreign-policy.html?recp=7&_r=1

**Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential front-runner, said that if elected, he might halt purchases of oil from Saudi Arabia and other Arab allies unless they commit ground troops to the fight against the Islamic State or “substantially reimburse” the United States for combating the militant group, which threatens their stability.

“If Saudi Arabia was without the cloak of American protection,” Mr. Trump said during a 100-minute interview on foreign policy, spread over two phone calls on Friday, “I don’t think it would be around.”

He also said he would be open to allowing Japan and South Korea to build their own nuclear arsenals rather than depend on the American nuclear umbrella for their protection against North Korea and China. If the United States “keeps on its path, its current path of weakness, they’re going to want to have that anyway, with or without me discussing it,” Mr. Trump said.**

It’s a pretty interesting article and interview, in my opinion, although it’s becoming increasingly clear that while Trump’s style and approach to governance would be unusual, he likely wouldn’t change longheld U.S. policy much at all. There’s an immensely powerful and unchanging structure in place which guarantees basic continuity, but within that closed system he might be able to do some unexpected things. The article continues at the link.

I like what he’s saying. He wants nations to be independent and wants reciprocity of good will if America is to help another country. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Little_Sheep]

Question: are you deliberately trying to get us to disregard what you say??

Just trying to be upfront with a poster who might not know that about me. Whether or not someone disregards me makes no difference to me. I suspect many here disregard opinions with which they do not agree.

 

[Exiled_Child]

I like what he’s saying. He wants nations to be independent and wants reciprocity of good will if America is to help another country. Nothing wrong with that.

What do you think would happen if were elected and then actually attempted to stop all U.S. aid to Saudi Arabia and Israel?

Would either of those actions be possible?

How would Israel respond, do you think?

 

[queenofheartscv]

What do you think would happen if were elected and then actually attempted to stop all U.S. aid to Saudi Arabia and Israel?

There will be give and take. There will be consultation and deliberation. He won’t do anything irrational. He’s a very pragmatic man.

 

[Exiled_Child]

There will be give and take. There will be consultation and deliberation. He won’t do anything irrational. He’s a very pragmatic man.

I confess, I don’t understand your answer.

 

[Peter_J]

Alright I’m just gonna say it: the last hundred posts (I just did a whole lot of catching up) make me think this thread has gone topsy turvy.

 

[Peter_J]

Just trying to be upfront with a poster who might not know that about me.

Calling us “anti-choicers” is being upfront? Give me a break (please).

 

[queenofheartscv]

I confess, I don’t understand your answer.

What I’m saying he is now telling us his guiding principles in foreign policy. What he’ll do in concrete policies, whether he will get rid of foreign aid altogether for certain countries, in those aspects I believe he won’t be rash but rather take the advice of experts; he will also use negotiation skills–give and take–in order to go where he wants with foreign countries, but he won’t do anything that will jeopardize our national interests or gain us more enemies.