2016 Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
#4,902
#4,902
Vol8188 said:
Not all of the blame goes to Obama. The partisanship is coming from both sides. Being willingly to work with Obama is something many republicans have called their colleagues out on. They've also made statements about being elected to ensure he couldn't pass any legislation.
Click to expand...

I agree with you and have stated such in a prior post. For example, Mitch McConnell's statement about making Obama a one term President (or something like that) was ridiculous.

Vol8188 said:
Also 4 and 5 on your list were actual examples of him working with republicans to get something accomplished
Click to expand...

But the reason he worked with them was because it was the right thing to do for the economy. That's not an act of compromising. That's an act of realizing you made some prior plans/commitments and now need to back track. That's like saying he also "compromised" with Republicans by deciding to keep Guantanamo open in his first term after he said he would close it during the election campaign.
 
#4,903
#4,903
n_huffhines said:
What are you basing this on?
Click to expand...

Zero mention from him of nation building and other comments indicating his philosophy of intervention (if it occurred) would be limited to wins and via a commitment to win. The tone I get from him is limited (time) engagement militarily but not the standard neocon "we are the world's police and governors" spiel.

He's full of bluster on the trail but he's a deal maker and careful to avoid situations where he doesn't see a clear win.

I'd bet his foreign policy is much more Bill Clinton than George W Bush.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,904
#4,904
n_huffhines said:
All of them will, which means none of them deserve your vote.

I don't see what Trump has done to show that he deserves your vote (knowing you and your politics) moreso than the others.

It is possible that he is the best viable candidate. But it's just as likely that he is the worst possible candidate, ever. He's talking about internment for ****'s sake, setting white people back 70 years.

I was thinking I might vote for the lesser of 2 evils over Trump or Sanders, but now that I have put some thought into it, I can't justify a vote for HRC and Sanders probably wouldn't be able to get much done. His policies are the worst, but in action he probably can't get them through. Trump can.
Click to expand...

I will vote for the best option. If my vote mattered between Trump or Clinton/Sanders/Biden/Warren I'd vote Trump.

Since my vote won't matter (thankyou red Alabama) I'll probably do a write in or see who's in from the Libertarian side.

My comments about Trump are based in my realization that he would not be the disaster he's portrayed to be. I'll never be a strong Trump supporter but for now I could live with a Trump presidency given the other options.
 
#4,905
#4,905
volinbham said:
Zero mention from him of nation building and other comments indicating his philosophy of intervention (if it occurred) would be limited to wins and via a commitment to win. The tone I get from him is limited (time) engagement militarily but not the standard neocon "we are the world's police and governors" spiel.

He's full of bluster on the trail but he's a deal maker and careful to avoid situations where he doesn't see a clear win.

I'd bet his foreign policy is much more Bill Clinton than George W Bush.
Click to expand...

I'd be happy with that, but I'm not counting on it. When he says stuff like "carpet bomb ISIS" he doesn't really remind me of Bill. Hell, W wouldn't even say stuff like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,906
#4,906
IBlvNTmWrk said:
But the reason he worked with them was because it was the right thing to do for the economy. That's not an act of compromising. That's an act of realizing you made some prior plans/commitments and now need to back track. That's like saying he also "compromised" with Republicans by deciding to keep Guantanamo open in his first term after he said he would close it during the election campaign.
Click to expand...

But that's what you want from your leaders! To do the right thing at the time for the people. That's 100% a compromise
 
#4,907
#4,907
volinbham said:
I will vote for the best option. If my vote mattered between Trump or Clinton/Sanders/Biden/Warren I'd vote Trump.

Since my vote won't matter (thankyou red Alabama) I'll probably do a write in or see who's in from the Libertarian side.

My comments about Trump are based in my realization that he would not be the disaster he's portrayed to be. I'll never be a strong Trump supporter but for now I could live with a Trump presidency given the other options.
Click to expand...

I can see him being a lot worse or being a pleasant surprise. The dude seems like he is all over the place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,908
#4,908
n_huffhines said:
I'd be happy with that, but I'm not counting on it. When he says stuff like "carpet bomb ISIS" he doesn't really remind me of Bill. Hell, W wouldn't even say stuff like that.
Click to expand...

I may be mistaken, but I believe that "nugget of wisdom" actually came from Cruz.
 
#4,911
#4,911
Vol8188 said:
But that's what you want from your leaders! To do the right thing at the time for the people. That's 100% a compromise
Click to expand...

You may want to check your understanding of what a compromise entails.

Just as an example... agreeing to put a limit on late term abortions would be a compromise by both pro-lifers and pro-choice, as both would have made concessions.

Realizing that something you committed to do during the election campaign in order to get votes, would actually be the wrong thing to do once you've been elected, is not an act of compromise. That would be much closer to an act of flip-flopping.
 
#4,912
#4,912
12417984_599087093576115_5096709547308660651_n.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#4,913
#4,913
n_huffhines said:
Oh yeah, Trump said, "I would bomb the **** out of them."

Same difference
Click to expand...

Yes/no. Carpet bombing implies leveling a place, civilians and all. Bomb the bleep out of them depends on who them is.

Personally, I don't have a problem with use of military force against a known enemy. I have a problem when we include the nation building/regime change part.

Trump also said let the Russians fight ISIS in Syria - I'm guessing you are okay with that. I don't recall him advocating any substantial ground troop intervention in Syria/Iraq.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,915
#4,915
volinbham said:
Zero mention from him of nation building and other comments indicating his philosophy of intervention (if it occurred) would be limited to wins and via a commitment to win. The tone I get from him is limited (time) engagement militarily but not the standard neocon "we are the world's police and governors" spiel.

He's full of bluster on the trail but he's a deal maker and careful to avoid situations where he doesn't see a clear win.

I'd bet his foreign policy is much more Bill Clinton than George W Bush.
Click to expand...

The problem with Trump is he offers very little substance, so nobody really knows where he stands.

If one relies on his record, it certainly doesn't match his campaign platform. I find that troubling.

People are buying into his cult of personality.

If Trump is elected, I'm sure he'll take full advantage of the precedent of expanded executive authority set by Obama and unchecked by Congress.

Seems like a huge leap of faith to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,916
#4,916
DC_Vol said:
If Trump is elected, I'm sure he'll take full advantage of the precedent of expanded executive authority set by Obama and unchecked by Congress.

Seems like a huge leap of faith to me.
Click to expand...

The same could be said about most any candidate. Hell, nobody could even be sure Rand wouldn't take advantage of the situation, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he likely wouldn't.
 
#4,917
#4,917
DC_Vol said:
The problem with Trump is he offers very little substance, so nobody really knows where he stands.

If one relies on his record, it certainly doesn't match his campaign platform. I find that troubling.

People are buying into his cult of personality.

If Trump is elected, I'm sure he'll take full advantage of the precedent of expanded executive authority set by Obama and unchecked by Congress.

Seems like a huge leap of faith to me.
Click to expand...

Here's what I know:

1. He's pro-business
2. He's for some tax reform to stimulate the economy rather than "righting" some wrongs.
3. He doesn't make crazy deals; he's pretty disciplined at looking for wins.


What concerns me is his support for eminent domain and his over the top comments on immigration.

More and more I could see his being equivalent to a Bill Clinton presidency. Yes that means more government (all candidates do) but on the whole it was a prosperous time for the country.

He's not my choice but I've come around from no way to I could deal with it.
 
#4,918
#4,918
Grand Vol said:
The same could be said about most any candidate. Hell, nobody could even be sure Rand wouldn't take advantage of the situation, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he likely wouldn't.
Click to expand...

It's funny how the National Review got all bent about Trump not being a true conservative in the small government sense of the word but completely ignores Rand Paul as someone they'd support. Tells you the neocons still rule the roost there.
 
#4,919
#4,919
volinbham said:
Here's what I know:

1. He's pro-business
2. He's for some tax reform to stimulate the economy rather than "righting" some wrongs.
3. He doesn't make crazy deals; he's pretty disciplined at looking for wins.


What concerns me is his support for eminent domain and his over the top comments on immigration.

More and more I could see his being equivalent to a Bill Clinton presidency. Yes that means more government (all candidates do) but on the whole it was a prosperous time for the country.

He's not my choice but I've come around from no way to I could deal with it.
Click to expand...

I think you're one of the smartest and generally most logical posters on this board. And if you've flipped, I can't see why the remainder of us couldn't take a second look.
 
#4,920
#4,920
Vol8188 said:
Not all of the blame goes to Obama. The partisanship is coming from both sides. Being willing to work with Obama is something many republicans have called their colleagues out on. They've also made statements about being elected to ensure he couldn't pass any legislation.

Also 4 and 5 on your list were actual examples of him working with republicans to get something accomplished
Click to expand...

Now, now 8188, don't let facts and common sense get in the way of the good ole right-wing rhetoric being spewed on this board.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,921
#4,921
bnhunt said:
Now, now 8188, don't let facts and common sense get in the way of the good ole right-wing rhetoric being spewed on this board.
Click to expand...

“President Obama depended almost exclusively on a handful of folks situated in the White House,” LaHood wrote, according to the report. “He rarely sought counsel outside that group. He did not, as other presidents have done, place a high value on consulting with members of Congress."


Former Cabinet member: Obama abandoned bipartisanship early | TheHill
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4,923
#4,923
theFallGuy said:
“President Obama depended almost exclusively on a handful of folks situated in the White House,” LaHood wrote, according to the report. “He rarely sought counsel outside that group. He did not, as other presidents have done, place a high value on consulting with members of Congress."


Former Cabinet member: Obama abandoned bipartisanship early | TheHill
Click to expand...

Now, now FallGuy, don't let facts and common sense get in the way of bnhunt's ole left-wing strategy of blaming the right-wing for everything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,925
#4,925
bnhunt said:
ANY President whose party also controls Congress tries to push their agenda as much as possible. It's not unique to Obama. You may not like or agree w/ Obamacare, but to pretend that a President pushing through legislation when his/her party also controls Congress is somehow something new is just ignoring history.
Click to expand...
Here is one difference. My Congressman, Republican Dr. Phil Roe, is a retired MD, and one of the main reasons that he ran for office was to try to work on health care reform.

Once in office, he asked to meet with Obama to discuss his ideas from the doctor's viewpoint, and offer suggestions. He was not given the opportunity, so he wrote a letter outlining some specific ideas, and asked for a followup from Obama aides. His letter got no response....none....zero....nada. A representative of the people, who had decades of experience in the medical field , was not afforded the opportunity to offer any suggestions.

Obama had his plan that he was going to railroad through, regardless of what the people wanted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top