Trump v GOP

[Peter_J]

One thing where I really disagree with Romney is on lots of candidates getting lots of delegates and then sorting it all out at the convention.

 

[queenofheartscv]

If Romney was so great he would have won 4 years ago.

 

[Peter_J]

So, an establishment figure condemns and rails against a candidate running as anti-establishment?

So why is it that e.g. when Chris Christie endorsed Trump, people referred to Christie by name rather than saying “So, a (fill in the blank) figure endorses Trump?”?

 

[Path_Finder]

If Romney was so great he would have won 4 years ago.

Just in my view, if Catholics, probably even 55% of Catholics, had voted for the correct candidate, most closely espousing Catholic values, Romney would have won.

And so on, many excuses can be made.

 

[Tomdstone]

Is Romney the guy who created Obamacare that so many Republicans dislike and want to get rid of?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Republican front-runner Donald Trump said Friday he is canceling his Saturday speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Trump was scheduled to speak Saturday morning at the annual gathering of conservative activists held near Washington, D.C.

The American Conservative Union, which hosts CPAC, tweeted: “Very disappointed (at)realDonaldTrump has decided at the last minute to drop out of (hash)CPAC – his choice sends a clear message to conservatives."

foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/04/trump-cancels-cpac-appearance-speech.html

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is obviously not true since his policy could start WWIII. If you want to blow up the globe with WWIII, Kasich is your man.

WWIII starts at the borders of Poland and the Baltic States. How does a better-armed Ukraine, in its effort to keep from being conquered by Russia, get Russian arms closer to those borders when Russian aggression toward the fateful borders was enhanced precisely by Ukrainian weakness?

The problem with the “Kasich-will-start-a-war” proposition is that it does not take the likely starter of such a war into account. Russia has the deciding vote in that issue.

And in any event, experience shows that, among the candidates, only Hillary Clinton actually has experience in starting wars. She is far more to be feared as a war-monger than is Kasich.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

We are not talking about electing the Director of Etiquette here. We’re talking about electing a person whose function is to lead and manage an enormous nation.

There is significant difference between a head of a corporation and the leader of a nation. The CEO is answerable to the stockholders through the board of directors. His main goal is to maximize profits for the investors (as it should be). The leader of a nation, on the other hand, should be answerable to all the people of his nation - not just the ones that elected him. I don’t think Trump has the first idea of how to do that, nor does he show any indication of wanting to do that.

Even Romney, in his speech, seriously misrepresented some facts…

Specifics, please?

Ted Cruz’ misrepresentations are almost without number. So are Rubio’s. I’ll hand it to Kasich. He has not told outright lies, but neither has he told the full truth.

I think the Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich supporters would disagree with you.

The American people don’t want to hear the truth; absolutely don’t want to hear it, and we’ll reject anyone who tells it to us.

That’s why Trump is so attractive, because tells his supporters just what they want to hear.

Trump says what he thinks (rightly, apparently) a very large number of people are thinking.

What he has done is tap into the pre-existing dissatisfaction, stirring it up with inflamatory rhetoric, all for his own benefit.

Which of the candidates will be able to manage the “biggest corporation” on earth, and how will they do it?
Of all the candidates, the only ones who have ever built anything for which people paid voluntarily, are Trump and Kasich. The only ones who have hired and fired for reasons of expertise and efficiency are Trump and Kasich.

See paragraph 1

 

[Ridgerunner]

The problem here might be that Trump could be perceiving that CPAC is no longer conservative in anything but name. Real conservatism accepts diversity within certain parameters. Nobody could possibly doubt Trump has people inside CPAC who could tip him off to any likely anti-Trump feeding frenzy.

 

[Tomdstone]

WWIII starts at the borders of Poland and the Baltic States. How does a better-armed Ukraine, in its effort to keep from being conquered by Russia, get Russian arms closer to those borders when Russian aggression toward the fateful borders was enhanced precisely by Ukrainian weakness?

The problem with the “Kasich-will-start-a-war” proposition is that it does not take the likely starter of such a war into account. Russia has the deciding vote in that issue.

And in any event, experience shows that, among the candidates, only Hillary Clinton actually has experience in starting wars. She is far more to be feared as a war-monger than is Kasich.

Kasich claims in his ads that Trump would choose Vladimir Putin as vice president, which shows how irrational he is.
Further, there are hotheads in western Ukraine. True, there are some reasonable people living there, but there are a lot of hot heads who would like nothing more than to use advanced weapons to move against eastern Ukraine and defeat the Russian minority there. Even now, many say they want all Russians in the east to leave. Russian speaking retired people in eastern Ukraine have worked hard all their lives and now the Ukrainian government is committing economic genocide against them by denying them their pensions. It makes no sense to escalate the war in Ukraine and to risk blowing up the whole world by starting WWIII. But I guess if that’s what you want to do, then Kasich is your man.

 

[Thorolfr]

Hillary Clinton, we may be forgiven for believing, has demonstrated a depth of corruption unprecedented in modern history. She’s a war-monger and a war-starter. She has a very cruel streak in her. How, then, will she “manage the big company”? With those characteristics at the fore?

Unlike Hillary, Trump, of course, doesn’t have a mean streak at all (he’s kindness itself) and he doesn’t have a single corrupt bone in his body.

 

[Path_Finder]

Good for Kasich.

If Ukraine had not disarmed and given up their nukes in the '90s, they would not be having to live with this predatory invasion of their land and people.

 

[Vouthon]

Good for Kasich.

If Ukraine had not disarmed and given up their nukes in the '90s, they would not be having to live with this predatory invasion of their land and people.

100% agree

However I think it’s best to ignore Tomdstone’s comment because he is making us veer off-topic.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Kasich claims in his ads that Trump would choose Vladimir Putin as vice president, which shows how irrational he is.
Further, there are hotheads in western Ukraine. True, there are some reasonable people living there, but there are a lot of hot heads who would like nothing more than to use advanced weapons to move against eastern Ukraine and defeat the Russian minority there. Even now, many say they want all Russians in the east to leave. Russian speaking retired people in eastern Ukraine have worked hard all their lives and now the Ukrainian government is committing economic genocide against them by denying them their pensions. It makes no sense to escalate the war in Ukraine and to risk blowing up the whole world by starting WWIII. But I guess if that’s what you want to do, then Kasich is your man.

The majority of Russian-speakers in eastern Ukraine want to remain part of Ukraine. Of all eastern Ukrainians, the percentage is about 70%. And yet, Russian agents, arms, and soldiery are in eastern Ukraine. Russia has annexed Crimea outright and is in the process of evicting Catholics and Tatars.

No reasonable Ukrainian could possibly doubt Russia has designs on his country; the only question being how much more of Ukraine Moscow will devour.

As to a minority of Russians living in eastern Ukraine whose allegiance is to Moscow and not Kiev, is there some compelling reason why Ukraine should pay them for their disloyalty?

How much of Ukraine are Russian apologists willing to cede to Russia? Short of Kiev? West of Kiev? Where? Does it even stop at Poland’s border?

 

[Tomdstone]

However I think it’s best to ignore Tomdstone’s comment because he is making us veer off-topic.

You claimed that Kasich was the embodiment of rational GOP politics. I submit that it is not rational to advocate a policy that risks blowing up the whole world. And it is not rational to claim that Trump will choose Vladimir Putin as his vice president.

 

[Vouthon]

You claimed that Kasich was the embodiment of rational GOP politics. I submit that it is not rational to advocate a policy that risks blowing up the whole world. And it is not rational to claim that Trump will choose Vladimir Putin as his vice president.

And I still believe what I said. Kasich is rational and Trump spoke positively about Vladimir Putin, which explains Kasich’s remark; a remark I might add that has a touch of humour but also a serious point about the ridiculousness of Trump’s projected foreign policy goals which are causing such angst among America’s allies at a time when the security situation is at its worst since the height of the Cold War in 1983.

 

[Thorolfr]

And I still believe what I said. Kasich is rational and Trump spoke positively about Vladimir Putin, which explains Kasich’s remark; a remark I might add that has a touch of humour but also a serious point about the ridiculousness of Trump’s projected foreign policy goals which are causing such angst among America’s allies at a time when the security situation is at its worst since the height of the Cold War in 1983.

I don’t know how anyone could have a positive opinion of Vladimir Putin. George W. Bush once remarked, "“I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country.”

And now Trump has something positive to say about Putin? Putin’s a criminal. As the blurb at Amazon on the book by Karen Dawisha says:

The raging question in the world today is who is the real Vladimir Putin and what are his intentions. Karen Dawisha’s brilliant Putin’s Kleptocracy provides an answer, describing how Putin got to power, the cabal he brought with him, the billions they have looted, and his plan to restore the Greater Russia.

Russian scholar Dawisha describes and exposes the origins of Putin’s kleptocratic regime. She presents extensive new evidence about the Putin circle’s use of public positions for personal gain even before Putin became president in 2000. She documents the establishment of Bank Rossiya, now sanctioned by the US; the rise of the Ozero cooperative, founded by Putin and others who are now subject to visa bans and asset freezes; the links between Putin, Petromed, and “Putin’s Palace” near Sochi; and the role of security officials from Putin’s KGB days in Leningrad and Dresden, many of whom have maintained their contacts with Russian organized crime.

amazon.com/Putins-Kleptocracy-Who-Owns-Russia/dp/1476795193/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1457124063&sr=8-10&keywords=putin

Why is it that so many Republicans are so enamored by Putin?

 

[Vouthon]

I don’t know how anyone could have a positive opinion of Vladimir Putin. George W. Bush once remarked, "“I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country.”

And now Trump has something positive to say about Putin? Putin’s a criminal. As the blurb at Amazon on the book by Karen Dawisha say:

amazon.com/Putins-Kleptocracy-Who-Owns-Russia/dp/1476795193/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1457124063&sr=8-10&keywords=putin

Why is it that so many Republicans are so enamored by Putin?

 

[Peter_J]

Is Romney the guy who created Obamacare that so many Republicans dislike and want to get rid of?

No he was not.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Theo520;

I disagree, though stubborn representatives are a factor, it’s the President that must show leadership in driving negotiation and compromise.
Reagan did it and was productive
Bill Clinton did it and was productive

Reagan did it because he had a democratic controlled congress who compromised, but also, when they didn’t compromise, Reagan turned to the people and they put the pressure on their representatives. Speaker of the House Tip O’Neal said that Reagan was the most dangerous president he ever worked with, because if he wanted something, he turned to the people. Tip showed his arrogance because following the will of the people is what the government is suppose to do.

Clinton did not compromise with the GOP controlled Congress. Remember the government shut down which he caused ? It wasn’t until he realized that he had his back against the wall, that he began to compromise. However, it was also the large amounts of tax revenue the government was getting during the 90’s hi-tech boom that created the great economy. Clinton did nothing to create that good economy, but help destroy it with his trade agreements which would come to kill US manufacturing through 2000-20009.

All good negotiators have to compromise, and the reason we’re in gridlock is because of the GOP controlled congress especially driven by Ted Cruz and Eric Cantor, who got a nice job with a stock investment firm, for shutting down the government.

Obama has called for leaders of the Senate and House to meet with him, they have refused since taking control of Congress.

The government shutdown by the GOP, gained nothing in the final budget they signed and sent to the president.

It was a scam, nothing more.

Jim