Trump Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sy_Noe said:
“A lot of people love Trump” seems to translate to about 37% give or take of those voting in his own party’s primaries and caucuses. There is a “Stop Trump” movement going on right now within the Republican ranks.

Trump has won 37 percent of Republican votes and is regarded unfavorably by more than 60 percent of general election voters. It’s hard to get from there to 270 electoral votes.

realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/03/22/donald_trump_has_37_percent_hard_to_get_to_270_electoral_votes_130052.html
Click to expand...
Trump has the highest unfavorable rating of any presidential candidate in history.
 
gilliam said:
I think it is much less than that. He has managed to turn off people who voted for him early on in the process.

Yep, and the only person he has to blame is himself.
Click to expand...
Good point. I hadn’t thought about some of those who voted for him early could by now be turned off.
 
estesbob said:
And Trump jumps on her for the absolute disaster her term as SOS was. Dead diplomats, belligerent Russia, middle east in turmoil and terrorists attacks on the rise.
Click to expand...
All of these are complicated issues over which no US diplomat has much control. The instability in the Middle East is due more to the incompetence of the Bush administration than to anything Clinton did.
 
Here’s something interesting:
Republicans who once worried that Mr. Trump might gain overwhelming momentum in the primaries are now becoming preoccupied with a different grim prospect: that Mr. Trump might become a kind of zombie candidate — damaged beyond the point of repair, but too late for any of his rivals to stop him.
Click to expand...
nytimes.com/2016/04/02/us/politics/gop-fears-donald-trump-as-zombie-candidate-damaged-but-unstoppable.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

That’s an interesting image, Donald Trump as zombie candidate.
 
Thorolfr said:
All of these are complicated issues over which no US diplomat has much control. The instability in the Middle East is due more to the incompetence of the Bush administration than to anything Clinton did.
Click to expand...
You can blame Bush for Iraq if you wish, though it was the abandonment of Iraq that caused the present problem. Remember? Obama even claimed “victory” there for himself.

Syria is a whole different thing. We were never in Syria until it went bad. Then Obama backed two warring sides simultaneously, refused to cooperate with Turkey in driving ISIS out.
 
Ridgerunner said:
You can blame Bush for Iraq if you wish, though it was the abandonment of Iraq that caused the present problem. Remember? Obama even claimed “victory” there for himself.

Syria is a whole different thing. We were never in Syria until it went bad. Then Obama backed two warring sides simultaneously, refused to cooperate with Turkey in driving ISIS out.
Click to expand...
It was the Bush administration which negotiated the time table for the US pull out of Iraq, not Obama. Also, Syria borders Iraq and the instability in Syria is partly due to what was happening in neighboring Iraq. Nevertheless, it is doubtful that anything the US can do could control what is happening in that region.
 
Good_Tidings said:
Hey, call me crazy, but I am so sick of men telling woman how they should feel and behave. I think that only women should be allowed to determine the choices that women have. No one knows better what is involved in making this decision, certainly not men.
Click to expand...
I have always found this a bit off - children are created by men and women after all. 50-50.

:thankyou:

To me this issue is about realizing the horror of what you are doing when you choose your own needs over the needs of the human being you have created, your own flesh and blood, your own child living in you. (and in many cases how did you get in such an irresponsible mess to be at the point of terminating the life of a child just to keep going in your life) Sickening, sickening situation. Nothing to do with any right to choose anything. Damage control when it is too late. Then rationalized. I don’t want to be harsh but I can’t understand going through with it; to me that is kind of inhuman - just my opinion.
 
Thorolfr said:
All of these are complicated issues over which no US diplomat has much control. The instability in the Middle East is due more to the incompetence of the Bush administration than to anything Clinton did.
Click to expand...
While individual diplomats have little control, that’s not true of the SOS. Hillary should take responsibility for our efforts to cause regime change in Libya and how we encouraged the Arab Spring uprising, and resulting problems. Stop blaming Bush for Obama Admin failures.
 
Theo520 said:
While individual diplomats have little control, that’s not true of the SOS. Hillary should take responsibility for our efforts to cause regime change in Libya and how we encouraged the Arab Spring uprising, and resulting problems. Stop blaming Bush for Obama Admin failures.
Click to expand...
Encouraging the Arab Springs was the right thing to do unless we just want to encourage and support undemocratic dictators who are oppressing their people instead. Having lived in Egypt for many years, I was certainly not sad to see the overthrow of Mr. Mubarak.
 
FollowChrist34 said:
I don’t want to be harsh but I can’t understand going through with it; to me that is kind of inhuman - just my opinion.
Click to expand...
You are a better person than I. Giving birth deepened both my compassion for women and my horror of abortion. Pregnancy hormones ran laps around me. I wasn’t prepared for that. I mean, I’m surrounded by people who love me, but what about those women who don’t have that? The people at the crisis pregnancy clinic I volunteered at knew exactly what they were talking about. They said we must treat every woman who comes through the door like we would treat Christ. (And here I made the practical suggestion of having ginger sucking candy or something.)
 
TCEL said:
You are a better person than I. Giving birth deepened both my compassion for women and my horror of abortion. Pregnancy hormones ran laps around me. I wasn’t prepared for that. I mean, I’m surrounded by people who love me, but what about those women who don’t have that? The people at the crisis pregnancy clinic I volunteered at knew exactly what they were talking about. They said we must treat every woman who comes through the door like we would treat Christ. (And here I made the practical suggestion of having ginger sucking candy or something.)
Click to expand...
No, I agree. (I don’t have kids so I can’t speak to that.) I understand why compassion is in order for women in this situation; there is incredible suffering. Maybe because I visualize so much about things - I just picture it as my child, right? What color of hair will it have? If you eat an orange, the kid eats an orange. If you drink a beer, the kid drinks a beer. Your blood stream is the blood stream of the child. I would feel that way right from the start. It would not just be my child when it had a heartbeat or could feel pain or whatever. If I wanted it, I would be feeding it granola, oranges, milk, playing it Mozart; if I didn’t it would not matter because I would be fully aware that it would never see the light of day. I get that they are many reasons why mothers have abortions; I don’t get the trying to rationalize away the reality of what is happening, of what you are doing. And I do feel I should not speculate too much here - it is so difficult and I have never been there. My larger point is that people reduce it to a ‘right.’ I cannot relate to that thinking; it completely alienates me. IMHO it is a lie. (My aunt had had three sons and did have an abortion later in life; I once asked if her if she ever thought about that abortion, that child - she said yes, 'that was my daughter '- blew my mind - and she was very prochoice)
 
Thorolfr said:
It was the Bush administration which negotiated the time table for the US pull out of Iraq, not Obama. Also, Syria borders Iraq and the instability in Syria is partly due to what was happening in neighboring Iraq. Nevertheless, it is doubtful that anything the US can do could control what is happening in that region.
Click to expand...
No treaty agreement is forever. It came up for renewal. The Joint Chiefs recommended leaving the 25,000 the Iraqi government wanted. Later, Maliki said he would settle for 10,000 and would guarantee extraterritoriality to U.S. troops. (the “Status of Forces” agreement) Obama refused, saying his limit was 3,000, fewer than he has there now. Maliki couldn’t sell that to the Iraqi parliament because they all knew that wouldn’t be enough, and that was the end. Obama knew he was presenting Maliki with an impossible choice.

Even Obama’s own CIA director admitted that. Obama himself did too, on national TV. He admitted he didn’t want a Status of Forces agreement. He just wanted out.

Then, of course, Obama declared “victory” for himself in Iraq.

Ideological devotion to Obama is one thing, but the facts are the facts.
 
Thorolfr said:
Encouraging the Arab Springs was the right thing to do unless we just want to encourage and support undemocratic dictators who are oppressing their people instead. Having lived in Egypt for many years, I was certainly not sad to see the overthrow of Mr. Mubarak.
Click to expand...
You preferred the dictatorship of the Muslim Brotherhood? Fortunately for Egypt, the Egyptian army didn’t.
 
Thorolfr said:
It was the Bush administration which negotiated the time table for the US pull out of Iraq, not Obama. Also, Syria borders Iraq and the instability in Syria is partly due to what was happening in neighboring Iraq. Nevertheless, it is doubtful that anything the US can do could control what is happening in that region.
Click to expand...
Again, no treaty agreement is forever, and the agreement in question was the Status of Forces agreement, not an agreement to pull out. Treaties are renegotiated from time to time. If Obama admitted on TV that he didn’t want a Status of Forces agreement, which he did, we ought to take him at his word. And why would you think his CIA director would lie about Obama not seriously negotiating with Malik for the extension of the agreement?
Obama didn’t want a renewal. He said it himself.
 
Hillary Clinton would have ensured that troops stayed in Iraq.
Does anyone doubt that a President McCain would have ensured the same?

Indeed, those who voted against McCain and now proclaim that Obama had no choice voted against McCain for precisely the reason that Obama promised withdrawal ASAP and McCain promised to stay as long as it takes.

It is not as if the POTUS is entirely without influence in international affairs, and must acquiesce to the wills of the weak. Obama withdrew because people elected him to withdraw. The choice was real enough for the American people, and people realized it was not an academic one at the time of that election.

If the people making the argument that Obama had no choice actually would have opted for him staying if they believed it was possible, the argument would at least not be disingenuous. Of course, nobody making that argument wanted American troops to remain in Iraq. They are quite happy that America has withdrawn, and are indifferent to the consequences that surely followed such a move.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top