Why Should Anyone Vote For Trump ?

[Hohn]

A leader would do it. A leader would be respected as such and more than likely the warning would be all that was needed to stop the BS. Putin is doing this crap because he can and he knows it. I'd like to see that change. Trump strikes me as the type to do what he says he'll do.

Trump strike me as the person to say what he says he'll say.

The "DO" part, well that's not yet in evidence.

A leader doesn't even need to actually make Russian shark food. Credibility is all that matters.

Anyone remember when Reagan said "the bombing begins in 5 minutes" and everyone freaked? Because they all knew in their bones that the man would never rule out pushing that button.

And it's not just coincidence that the Americans held in Iran were released on Inauguration Day, 1981.

 

[Hohn]

Demogogue = a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.

I don't find his arguments irrational. I find the current state of the country to be quite irrational.

I can certainly agree with the latter part.

I haven't really heard a completely sound argument from Trump yet to even evaluate it. There's snippets and parts of potential ideas, but nothing that can coherently be said to be a policy proposal,

I'll need to read up more on his website to see the details.

 

[phylodog]

OK, let's follow this through. Just like all the Presidents that have gone into a foreign land to take out a bad guy only to have no plan for the "now what?" aftermath.

So Trump takes out the GOP establishment.
1) Who exactly did he take out? Lobbyists? No. Congressional staffers? No. Think tank types? not at all. Wash-Reince-Repeat Priebus? Maybe-- does replacing him matter?
2) Who replaces who is taken out?

A short, incomplete history of "taking's out" that didn't go so well:
-- CIA taking out Mossadegh in 1953
-- Taking out the Serbs in Bosnia
-- Taking out Saddam from an otherwise stable Iraq.
-- Taking out Allende
-- Trying to take out Assad
-- Taking out Qadafi


NOTICING A PATTERN YET?

Want a civl war and a corrupt thugocracy? Well, just "take out" the major sources of stability.

So we should all just vote for whomever the establishment wants to parade in front of us, got it. There is no hope to turn things around, got it.

If it's gonna burn let it burn quick then, I'm voting for Trump. It's better than the slow, embarrassing death of a once great nation we've all got a front row seat to now.

 

[phylodog]

Trump strike me as the person to say what he says he'll say.

The "DO" part, well that's not yet in evidence.

A leader doesn't even need to actually make Russian shark food. Credibility is all that matters.

Anyone remember when Reagan said "the bombing begins in 5 minutes" and everyone freaked? Because they all knew in their bones that the man would never rule out pushing that button.

And it's not just coincidence that the Americans held in Iran were released on Inauguration Day, 1981.

Trump strikes me as a hell of a closer to another Regan than any of the other candidates, at least he has the ability and apparent desire to be a leader.

 

[Hohn]

So we should all just vote for whomever the establishment wants to parade in front of us, got it. There is no hope to turn things around, got it.

If it's gonna burn let it burn quick then, I'm voting for Trump. It's better than the slow, embarrassing death of a once great nation we've all got a front row seat to now.

False dichotomy. The options are not hell in handbasket A or handbasket B.

Ever run for Precinct Committeeman? City Council? County Council?

THAT is how you change a party and its direction. You change the national committee by changing the state committees. And the state committees by changeing the county ones. And the county ones by the Precinct ones.

ETA: we didn't lose our country overnight, and we certainly can't get it back any faster

I'm on the ballot for Precinct Committeeman of the Republican party in my Precinct.

Because I want to change the Republican party into what it should be, not complain ever year about the substandard slate of candidates I had no role in selecting.

 

[phylodog]

Good for you, I hope you're successful and I mean that sincerely. My father was pretty heavily involved in the Republican party in the 80's and 90's and held several of the positions you mentioned as well as running for a township office. I grew up working the polls and attending party gatherings. I'm well aware of how politics works and I'm also aware of how its supposed to work. Both parties are beyond broken, beyond corrupt and I don't know that they'll ever be brought back to actually representing the people of this country.

ETA: I don't see much corruption at the local level. I believe it begins to creep in at the state level and very few will ever see a position at the national level without selling their souls. I wish there were more power at the local level but that doesn't seem to be how it works.

 

[Bennettjh]

False dichotomy. The options are not hell in handbasket A or handbasket B.

Ever run for Precinct Committeeman? City Council? County Council?

THAT is how you change a party and its direction. You change the national committee by changing the state committees. And the state committees by changeing the county ones. And the county ones by the Precinct ones.

ETA: we didn't lose our country overnight, and we certainly can't get it back any faster

I'm on the ballot for Precinct Committeeman of the Republican party in my Precinct.

Because I want to change the Republican party into what it should be, not complain ever year about the substandard slate of candidates I had no role in selecting.

Glad to hear that. I wish you luck!

 

[Hohn]

Phylo, your locals are much less corrupt than ours, apparently.

 

[phylodog]

Phylo, your locals are much less corrupt than ours, apparently.

We definitely have it, perhaps its just that there aren't so many people watching. Smaller stage, smaller audience and it just doesn't come up as often. The nice thing is that when a local issue does come to the surface it isn't brushed under the rug as quickly or easily as it is at the state or national level.

 

[Route 45]

I think I may do the same. . .

Ace Frehley for President.

I like Ace, but I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who plays the same solo in every song.
It's a cool solo, granted...but nothing an intermediate level guitar student couldn't play.

 

[Route 45]

Which do you think would give the order to turn the next Russian pilot who does it into shark food? To actually do that which is threatened?

Do you want a president who will say it but not do it, or who will do it?

I have a feeling that if Trump were President, we wouldn't have to worry about Russian jets buzzing our ships. We would be coordinating with Russia to destroy radical islamists. Seems to me that Putin and Trump would get along quite well. There is no reason to be an enemy of Russia. They probably would make a better ally than the whipped nations of western Europe, who are busy turning their once great nations over to the invading hordes.

 

[AA&E]

But that is a different issue. It isn't like the Dems are a bastion of voter solidarity.

I will grant that a Dem Congressional majority and HRC would be the worst case scenario. I haven't looked that deeply into the Senate races, but I don't get the feeling that there are very many in play though. And neither HRC nor Sanders (nor Trump nor Cruz for that matter) will likely have long coattails. At least for this cycle, I see the balance staying relatively unchanged.

If you are saying the RNC needs to get its act together - or some variation of that - we are in agreement. But, I do think this Trump phenomenon reveals fault lines that have been growing for a long time. (As the Sanders Movement does, too, on the other side.) Republicans across society need to figure out what the party is.

Fair commentary on the current situation. I am worried about the state of congress. A Clinton presidency and a swing in congressional control is something that should be a concern and something anyone should consider before stating they'd vote for Clinton IMO.

 

[AA&E]

We can afford a wall and the people to man it. What we can't afford is to continue providing endless reasons for people to come here illegally. We can't afford to keep providing people who refuse to work thousands of dollars a month in free ****. We can't afford "free" healthcare. We can't afford to continue getting screwed by every major country in the planet. Building a wall is nothing in comparison.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to phylodog again.

You need to stop being right so often.

 

[AA&E]

Oh my. Foreign policy. The land where Trump is truly ignorant. Dangerously ignorant. We probably don't want the conversation to move in that direction.

This narrative is comical... somehow a junior member of congress is obviously superior in foreign policy due to his vast experience. Right? Nonsense.

 

[T.Lex]

A leader would do it. A leader would be respected as such and more than likely the warning would be all that was needed to stop the BS. Putin is doing this crap because he can and he knows it. I'd like to see that change. Trump strikes me as the type to do what he says he'll do.

Take heart, in another apparent signal of their similarities, Obama's Secretary of State has said what you want a leader to say.
Kerry: Shooting down Russia jets 'would have been justified' - BBC News

The US military would have been within its rights to shoot down Russian aircraft that flew close to one of its warships in the Baltic Sea, Secretary of State John Kerry says.

He's basically wrong, though. Those aircraft were allowed that close because they were not a threat. The civilian analogy would be to shoot an unarmed protester because he points his finger at you in the shape of a gun.

This narrative is comical... somehow a junior member of congress is obviously superior in foreign policy due to his vast experience. Right? Nonsense.

Yes, because I forget that on INGO, common-sense is non-sense.

A little bit of something is more than nothing.

Again, I am not thrilled with any of the choices presented. Worst. Election. Cycle. Evah.

 

[phylodog]

I didn't suggest they should have fired at the Russians. The point is that if we had a leader in the White House we would not be having this discussion in the first place.

 

[T.Lex]

I didn't suggest they should have fired at the Russians. The point is that if we had a leader in the White House we would not be having this discussion in the first place.

That, my friend, is wishful thinking. The Soviets did this sort of thing - granted, not this EXACT thing, but very similar - during Reagan's presidency. And, importantly, we did the same kinds of things to them. Heck, the opening and closing sequences of Top Gun are more provocative than this mini-air show - those aircraft actually had weapons.

I am concerned that our leaders - and perhaps our society - have lost the ability to show force by not talking about force. There is an entire vocabulary that seems to be absent.

We don't have to threaten to be threatening. We don't have to rattle our saber to wield it when necessary.

That simple.

In this specific case, it has been reported that we were practicing helo landings during the flybys, but stopped. That was probably a mistake. Yes, the Russians were making it dangerous, but that's the point. THEY were making it dangerous. We allowed a 2-ship of unarmed planes to shut down our operation. That's on us.

 

[phylodog]

That, my friend, is wishful thinking. The Soviets did this sort of thing - granted, not this EXACT thing, but very similar - during Reagan's presidency. And, importantly, we did the same kinds of things to them. Heck, the opening and closing sequences of Top Gun are more provocative than this mini-air show - those aircraft actually had weapons.

Perhaps you're right. I'm probably more troubled by it now than I would have been back then, probably because I would expect Obama to call Putin, apologize for having a ship near his airplanes and swiftly order it out of the area so as not to bother anyone else.

I am concerned that our leaders - and perhaps our society - have lost the ability to show force by not talking about force. There is an entire vocabulary that seems to be absent.

We don't have to threaten to be threatening. We don't have to rattle our saber to wield it when necessary.

That simple.

In this specific case, it has been reported that we were practicing helo landings during the flybys, but stopped. That was probably a mistake. Yes, the Russians were making it dangerous, but that's the point. THEY were making it dangerous. We allowed a 2-ship of unarmed planes to shut down our operation. That's on us.

I don't find anything to disagree with here. Where do we go from here? Is this the end of our conversation??????

 

[T.Lex]

Perhaps you're right. I'm probably more troubled by it now than I would have been back then, probably because I would expect Obama to call Putin, apologize for having a ship near his airplanes and swiftly order it out of the area so as not to bother anyone else.

Well, funny you should mention that. Our ops happened to be pretty close to a Russian Navy base and were practicing helo recoveries with (reportedly) the Polish Navy.

The ops were a bit of nose-thumbing, which is pretty much par for the course for how we operate. And I think INGO approves.

I don't find anything to disagree with here. Where do we go from here? Is this the end of our conversation??????

I'm sure I can come up with something else to provoke.

For instance, all this talk of how Reagan would handly things. Not putting up with this stuff, put Putin in his place and all that. People forget that Reagan sacrificed all sorts of US military for the benefit of NOT going to war. *cough* USS Stark *cough*

 

[Hohn]

Nothing wrong with a little nose-thumbing. It's how the game is played, if played well.

There are few things as over-rated as experience. And no, a junior Senator who has sat on committee hearings for a few years is not "experienced" in foreign affairs.

Experience is not skill, it's experience. Skill in foreign relations involves 1)exceptional ability to read people and understand their interests 2) advanced understanding of game theory and 3) being very personable and of high emotional intelligence.

Those skills mostly have nothing to do with experience. And certainly, experience is no substitute for bad principles or philosophy. The most experienced--and even most skilled-- diplomat cannot effectively advance American interests if operating from the basic assumption that America, founded in racism by a wealthy white ruling class, is basically what's wrong with the world, having pillaged and plundered the globe to have arrived at so much ill-gotten prosperity.

Which is why NO Obama state department can effectively advance American interests. And HRC's "experience" is arguably worse than no experience at all.