2016 Election Thread Part Deux

#876
#876
tumscalcium said:
Sanders in the positive? God people are stupid.
Click to expand...

I don't know. When you check out the rating vs who won, maybe the pollsters don't know much about what they are doing. At least when you look for common mode for multiple failures to accurately predict, that's the common denominator if you give any credence to the polling - ask Dewey.

Polls are also used to direct a result. For example current polls claim that Trump supporters are white, middle class, males with less than sterling educational credentials. The not so subtle message is that if you are better educated you wouldn't/shouldn't be a part of that dingy crowd. If you don't want to be considered "less than", you shouldn't be travelling with the riffraff. Therefore, you'll see fewer Trump bumper stickers and outward signs of support than you otherwise might, and that will not go in his favor with the undecided. Funny thing my wife and I both have graduate degrees, and she's definitely not male, and we both support Trump. Not that we actually like Trump; he's just the least disgusting of the lot - and that is saying a lot.
 
#878
#878
UTCVol said:
Didn't hurt much in 2012 - only a net loss of 8 seats for the GOP when they already had a massive majority.

If we're talking 30 seats and thus the majority lost to the Dems in 2016, that's catastrophic. And Trump would share his onus of the blame. The top of the ticket is supposed to generate enthusiasm for the downward races.
Click to expand...

Actually the congressionalapproval rating is one of those completely bogus numbers. Everyone hates Congress, but they are all sure their own representatives are better than the rest, so they keep electing them - Pelosi's, other warts, and all.
 
#879
#879
Trump just told the Washington Post that U.S. involvement in NATO may need to be significantly diminished in the coming years,

“We certainly can’t afford to do this anymore," Trump said, adding later, "NATO is costing us a fortune and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money." He also went on to question America's Asiatic defense treaties.

This mans ignorance has no bounds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#880
#880
carlos86 said:
Trump just told the Washington Post that U.S. involvement in NATO may need to be significantly diminished in the coming years,

“We certainly can’t afford to do this anymore," Trump said, adding later, "NATO is costing us a fortune and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money." He also went on to question America's Asiatic defense treaties.

This mans ignorance has no bounds.
Click to expand...

Please explain how he is wrong. Why should we foot the majority of the defense bill for Western Europe?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#881
#881
carlos86 said:
Trump just told the Washington Post that U.S. involvement in NATO may need to be significantly diminished in the coming years,

“We certainly can’t afford to do this anymore," Trump said, adding later, "NATO is costing us a fortune and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money." He also went on to question America's Asiatic defense treaties.

This mans ignorance has no bounds.
Click to expand...

NATO does need to be gone. They need to pack their bags and get the hell out.
 
#885
#885
hog88 said:
Please explain how he is wrong. Why should we foot the majority of the defense bill for Western Europe?
Click to expand...

It's called a deterrence. Which is very much needed now after Putin and the Russian military announced the build up of a new Guards Tanks Army on the Polish border.
 
Last edited:
#889
#889
carlos86 said:
It's called a deterrence.
Click to expand...

It's called welfare for Western Europe. If they had to foot most of the bill for their own defense maybe they wouldn't be this mecca of quasi socialist countries. They wouldn't be able to afford it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#890
#890
hog88 said:
It's called welfare for Western Europe. If they had to foot most of the bill for their own defense maybe they wouldn't be this mecca of quasi socialist countries. They wouldn't be able to afford it!
Click to expand...

The U.S. doesn't pay NATO countries anything for the basing of personal in their countries. The U.S. Military actually use many of the NATO countries for training that can not take place in the US. And nearly all NATO countries have increase their defense spending to meet the spending to GDP standard that has been set,
 
#891
#891
carlos86 said:
Trump just told the Washington Post that U.S. involvement in NATO may need to be significantly diminished in the coming years,

“We certainly can’t afford to do this anymore," Trump said, adding later, "NATO is costing us a fortune and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money." He also went on to question America's Asiatic defense treaties.

This mans ignorance has no bounds.
Click to expand...

Why should we protect Europe? The USSR is gone, and Europe produces, in fact, competes with us for the sale of aircraft - military and commercial and in other large scale manufacturing. They can self-protect at this point. Besides I'm tired of supporting their security needs so they can divert money to socialist causes - particularly when the lefties here then complain that we are so far behind in social programs. I'd also prefer to wave goodbye to the UN and their attempt at new world order.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#892
#892
carlos86 said:
The U.S. doesn't pay NATO countries anything for the basing of personal in their countries. The U.S. Military actually use many of the NATO countries for training that can not take place in the US. And nearly all NATO countries have increase their defense spending to meet the spending to GDP standard that has been set,
Click to expand...

We shouldn't have to pay them to train because we pony up the most of any member nation in direct funding.

Nato Funding.jpg
 
#893
#893
AM64 said:
Why should we protect Europe? The USSR is gone, and Europe produces, in fact, competes with us for the sale of aircraft - military and commercial and in other large scale manufacturing. They can self-protect at this point. Besides I'm tired of supporting their security needs so they can divert money to socialist causes - particularly when the lefties here then complain that we are so far behind in social programs. I'd also prefer to wave goodbye to the UN and their attempt at new world order.
Click to expand...

I guess you totally missed the invasion of Ukraine Georgia and the Russian reformation of the 1st Guards Tank Army.
 
#894
#894
AM64 said:
Why should we protect Europe? The USSR is gone, and Europe produces, in fact, competes with us for the sale of aircraft - military and commercial and in other large scale manufacturing. They can self-protect at this point. Besides I'm tired of supporting their security needs so they can divert money to socialist causes - particularly when the lefties here then complain that we are so far behind in social programs. I'd also prefer to wave goodbye to the UN and their attempt at new world order.
Click to expand...

We haven't supported there security needs since 1998. NATO has been fulfilling its treaty obligations in Afghanistan for the last 10 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#895
#895
carlos86 said:
I guess you totally missed the invasion of Ukraine Georgia and the Russian reformation of the 1st Guards Tank Army.
Click to expand...

Nope, nor the fact that Putin likes to flex his muscles and pose a lot. I just don't have much sympathy when European nations put so little of their total spending (by comparison) toward defense. Particularly when the fact is that they are far closer geographically to potential conflict than we are.
 
#896
#896
carlos86 said:
We haven't supported there security needs since 1998. NATO has been fulfilling its treaty obligations in Afghanistan for the last 10 years.
Click to expand...

Then if the UN is doing such a bang up job, why are we in Afghanistan? By the way if you look back through history, every foreign country that has fought in Afghanistan has lost.
 
#897
#897
AM64 said:
Then if the UN is doing such a bang up job, why are we in Afghanistan? By the way if you look back through history, every foreign country that has fought in Afghanistan has lost.
Click to expand...

UN makes peace deals with other UN members. I don't remember the Taliban being a member of the UN.
 
#898
#898
You think the U.S. Participationin NATO is expensive? Compare it to costs of World Wars I and II. Deterrence is bargain compared to major wars.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#899
#899
AM64 said:
Then if the UN is doing such a bang up job, why are we in Afghanistan? By the way if you look back through history, every foreign country that has fought in Afghanistan has lost.
Click to expand...

Are you confusing the UN with NATO?

Two different animals entirely.
 
#900
#900
AM64 said:
Nope, nor the fact that Putin likes to flex his muscles and pose a lot. I just don't have much sympathy when European nations put so little of their total spending (by comparison) toward defense. Particularly when the fact is that they are far closer geographically to potential conflict than we are.
Click to expand...

Putin and Russia conducting a practice invasion of Norway (which just happened) is flexing its muscle. Invading a sovereign country with 65,000 troops and conducting a paramilitary insurgency in the rest of the country for 2 years and counting is an act of war and a warning to the rest of us.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top