2016 Election Thread Part Deux

#576
#576
HRC and Moveon.org approves this message

FLVOL69 said:
*

attachment.php
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#579
#579
#580
#580
Well, someone is taking the "possibility" of riots seriously.

Cleveland seeking to buy riot gear for Republican National Convention | cleveland.com

Cleveland is seeking to buy 2,000 sets of riot gear, including riot-control suits and collapsible batons, as part of the city's latest move to spend a $50 million federal security grant for July's Republican National Convention.

The city this week posted to its contracting website a notice seeking bidders to provide the gear. City documents refer to the "Elite Defender" riot-control suit manufactured by HWI Gear and a 26-inch baton manufactured by Monadnock, plus 2,000 bags to carry them.

The city also wants to buy 310 sets of riot-control gear — long-sleeve jackets, gloves and shin guards — that would be suitable for use by police riding bicycles.
Click to expand...
 
#581
#581
2ez2dv8 said:
On a scale of 1-25 The Economist rates The Donald

The Economist Global

Summary
Click to expand...

Analysis:

Thus far Mr Trump has given very few details of his policies - and these tend to be prone to constant revision - but a few themes have become apparent. First, he has been exceptionally hostile towards free trade, including notably NAFTA, and has repeatedly labelled China as a "currency manipulator". He has also taken an exceptionally right-wing stance on the Middle East and jihadi terrorism, including, among other things, advocating the killing of families of terrorists and launching a land incursion into Syria to wipe out IS (and acquire its oil). In the event of a Trump victory, his hostile attitude to free trade, and alienation of Mexico and China in particular, could escalate rapidly into a trade war - and at the least scupper the Trans-Pacific Partnership between the US and 11 other American and Asian states signed in February 2016. His militaristic tendencies towards the Middle East (and ban on all Muslim travel to the US) would be a potent recruitment tool for jihadi groups, increasing their threat both within the region and beyond.

Conclusion:

Although we do not expect Mr Trump to defeat his most likely Democratic contender, Hillary Clinton, there are risks to this forecast, especially in the event of a terrorist attack on US soil or a sudden economic downturn. It is worth noting that the innate hostility within the Republican hierarchy towards Mr Trump, combined with the inevitable virulent Democratic opposition, will see many of his more radical policies blocked in Congress - albeit such internal bickering will also undermine the coherence of domestic and foreign policymaking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#583
#583
carlos86 said:
Analysis:

Thus far Mr Trump has given very few details of his policies - and these tend to be prone to constant revision - but a few themes have become apparent. First, he has been exceptionally hostile towards free trade, including notably NAFTA, and has repeatedly labelled China as a "currency manipulator". He has also taken an exceptionally right-wing stance on the Middle East and jihadi terrorism, including, among other things, advocating the killing of families of terrorists and launching a land incursion into Syria to wipe out IS (and acquire its oil). In the event of a Trump victory, his hostile attitude to free trade, and alienation of Mexico and China in particular, could escalate rapidly into a trade war - and at the least scupper the Trans-Pacific Partnership between the US and 11 other American and Asian states signed in February 2016. His militaristic tendencies towards the Middle East (and ban on all Muslim travel to the US) would be a potent recruitment tool for jihadi groups, increasing their threat both within the region and beyond.

Conclusion:

Although we do not expect Mr Trump to defeat his most likely Democratic contender, Hillary Clinton, there are risks to this forecast, especially in the event of a terrorist attack on US soil or a sudden economic downturn. It is worth noting that the innate hostility within the Republican hierarchy towards Mr Trump, combined with the inevitable virulent Democratic opposition, will see many of his more radical policies blocked in Congress - albeit such internal bickering will also undermine the coherence of domestic and foreign policymaking.
Click to expand...

Do you always know what you will do before it happens? And if your hypothetical came to pass but events were different from what you imagined, did you follow through with your plan? How many politicians say one thing and do another if elected - 100%? Maybe they just said what a particular group wanted to hear one day and then something different to the next group - simply what worked to get votes. Or just maybe they wanted to act one way and events didn't permit that. Why should Trump be held to higher standards?

Free trade - who couldn't think that was fair - at least without looking things over. We entered the agreements with a far higher standard of living than others in the agreement. Labor unions had been increasing wages here for years, and government followed up with minimum wage mandates. So what in the hell did anyone with half a brain think would happen? They ate our lunch because we could in no way compete with countries whose wages were a fraction of ours. Is that an accomplishment to be proud of - that our politicians just destroyed a huge segment of our middle class with the stoke of a pen?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#584
#584
AM64 said:
Do you always know what you will do before it happens? And if your hypothetical came to pass but events were different from what you imagined, did you follow through with your plan? How many politicians say one thing and do another if elected - 100%? Maybe they just said what a particular group wanted to hear one day and then something different to the next group - simply what worked to get votes. Or just maybe they wanted to act one way and events didn't permit that. Why should Trump be held to higher standards?

Free trade - who couldn't think that was fair - at least without looking things over. We entered the agreements with a far higher standard of living than others in the agreement. Labor unions had been increasing wages here for years, and government followed up with minimum wage mandates. So what in the hell did anyone with half a brain think would happen? They ate our lunch because we could in no way compete with countries whose wages were a fraction of ours. Is that an accomplishment to be proud of - that our politicians just destroyed a huge segment of our middle class with the stoke of a pen?
Click to expand...

Trump should be held to a higher standard because he's the only candidate that has called for war crimes to committed and for the United States to commit 30,000 troops with the mission of seizing another nation's oil and fighting ISIS. He acts if the U.S. Military is a mercenary group instead of a profession of arms. His foreign policy proposals are ignorant, unreasonable and just plain stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#585
#585
carlos86 said:
Trump should be held to a higher standard because he's the only candidate that has called for war crimes to committed and for the United States to commit 30,000 troops with the mission of seizing another nation's oil and fighting ISIS. He acts if the U.S. Military is a mercenary group instead of a profession of arms. His foreign policy proposals are ignorant, unreasonable and just plain stupid.
Click to expand...

You mean something like this?

"On Monday the international coalition’s spokesperson Steve Warren announced, that Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has approved to deploy US special troops in Iraq to cut off ISIS supply lines between Iraq and Syria, stressing the international coalition’s efforts to prevent oil smuggling in favor of the organization, while pointed out to the destruction of 90% of ISIS oil reserves."

And

"A US air strike has destroyed an Islamic State (Isis) cash storage facility in Iraq containing currencies estimated to be worth millions of dollars. The warehouse, located in the town of Mosul, was pounded by two 2,000-pound bombs although it is not known exactly how much money or which currencies were kept at the compound."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#586
#586
Grand Vol said:
Well, someone is taking the "possibility" of riots seriously.

Cleveland seeking to buy riot gear for Republican National Convention | cleveland.com
Click to expand...

There were demonstration at the RNC in 2004, 2008, and 2012. The groups and topics didn't have conservative or Republican roots - just a good place for liberals to show up and generally be rowdy and disruptive; and, of course, drown out any message but theirs. No reason for 2016 to be different - except the lefties do probably hate Trump more than most candidates. In comparison to past policing, 2000 sets of riot gear sounds very conservative; so I'd be assuming that Cleveland has a few more sets in place. Nothing in recorded history has shown me that Republicans or conservatives have what it takes to require cops in riot gear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#587
#587
The more the GOP Establishment goes after Trump trying to undo the will of the voters the more I like Trump. The actions of the leaders of the GOP is one word, sickening.

I would never vote for Ted Cruz for any office. He is a despicable human being.

Kasich has been the only sensible adult during the campaign but the last week he has shown he will be nothing but a puppet for the establishment.

For me now it is Trump or nothing.

I hope this mess leads to a split in the Republican party that will bring us a valid 3rd party that will consist of the moderates from the Dems and Repubs . That would leave the Repubs with the right wing and the Dems with the left wing and Party X with the sensible wing. I will gladly support a moderate party.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#588
#588
carlos86 said:
Trump should be held to a higher standard because he's the only candidate that has called for war crimes to committed and for the United States to commit 30,000 troops with the mission of seizing another nation's oil and fighting ISIS. He acts if the U.S. Military is a mercenary group instead of a profession of arms. His foreign policy proposals are ignorant, unreasonable and just plain stupid.
Click to expand...

What exactly did HRC accomplish as SOS? Besides fly all over the globe and set travel records. Oh she did remove Ghaddifi.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#589
#589
AirVol said:
What exactly did HRC accomplish as SOS? Besides fly all over the globe and set travel records. Oh she did remove Ghaddifi.
Click to expand...

She accomplished having Russian and Chinese intelligence agencies accumulate numerous amounts of blackmail data through her personal "state" email account while compromising national security.

She did not, however, argue for war crimes and restructuring the press, as well as make dubious statements concerning her commitment to free speech, in any of these emails, as far as we know.
 
#590
#590
Gramps said:
The more the GOP Establishment goes after Trump trying to undo the will of the voters the more I like Trump. The actions of the leaders of the GOP is one word, sickening.

I would never vote for Ted Cruz for any office. He is a despicable human being.

Kasich has been the only sensible adult during the campaign but the last week he has shown he will be nothing but a puppet for the establishment.

For me now it is Trump or nothing.

I hope this mess leads to a split in the Republican party that will bring us a valid 3rd party that will consist of the moderates from the Dems and Repubs . That would leave the Repubs with the right wing and the Dems with the left wing and Party X with the sensible wing. I will gladly support a moderate party.
Click to expand...

You tend to be one of the more reasonable posters on here.

This isn't one of those times though. I never thought I'd see you voting for someone just to spite the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#592
#592
Gramps said:
The more the GOP Establishment goes after Trump trying to undo the will of the voters the more I like Trump. The actions of the leaders of the GOP is one word, sickening.

I would never vote for Ted Cruz for any office. He is a despicable human being.

Kasich has been the only sensible adult during the campaign but the last week he has shown he will be nothing but a puppet for the establishment.

For me now it is Trump or nothing.

I hope this mess leads to a split in the Republican party that will bring us a valid 3rd party that will consist of the moderates from the Dems and Repubs . That would leave the Repubs with the right wing and the Dems with the left wing and Party X with the sensible wing. I will gladly support a moderate party.
Click to expand...

Grand Vol said:
You tend to be one of the more reasonable posters on here.

This isn't one of those times though. I never thought I'd see you voting for someone just to spite the other.
Click to expand...

Where is Gramps saying anything like what you've indicated above? Who is the "other" you're referring to? It looks to me like he's saying he would vote for Trump because of the GOP establishment, and their possible attempt to deny the voters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#593
#593
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Where is Gramps saying anything like what you've indicated above? Who is the "other" you're referring to? It looks to me like he's saying he would vote for Trump because of the GOP establishment, and their possible attempt to deny the voters.
Click to expand...

You are correct. The GOP is clearly telling it's voters their opinions and votes do not count. What they fail to understand is without the voters the GOP would not be one of the 2 major parties. The voters makes the party not the few people that operates the party headquarters even if that have had their way for years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#594
#594
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Where is Gramps saying anything like what you've indicated above? Who is the "other" you're referring to? It looks to me like he's saying he would vote for Trump because of the GOP establishment, and their possible attempt to deny the voters.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Gramps has the ability to respond without needed anyone to fight his battles. However, since you asked, it's heavily implied in his post as thus far in the election cycle he's had really good reasons for his support of different candidates. Or lack thereof.

He's an analytical thinker and voter; generally not one subject to the raw emotions this elections has brought forward.
 
#595
#595
Gramps said:
You are correct. The GOP is clearly telling it's voters their opinions and votes do not count. What they fail to understand is without the voters the GOP would not be one of the 2 major parties. The voters makes the party not the few people that operates the party headquarters even if that have had their way for years.
Click to expand...

If Trump doesn't hit 1237, the voters will have still spoken. He was unable to garner enough support to outright win the nomination according to the rules set by the RNC. I don't think they'll deny it to him if he's close enough, but it will probably require concessions on his part.
 
#596
#596
UTCVol said:
If Trump doesn't hit 1237, the voters will have still spoken. He was unable to garner enough support to outright win the nomination according to the rules set by the RNC. I don't think they'll deny it to him if he's close enough, but it will probably require concessions on his part.
Click to expand...

Psst! That's called "making a good deal."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#597
#597
Grand Vol said:
I'm pretty sure Gramps has the ability to respond without needed anyone to fight his battles. However, since you asked, it's heavily implied in his post as thus far in the election cycle he's had really good reasons for his support of different candidates. Or lack thereof.

He's an analytical thinker and voter; generally not one subject to the raw emotions this elections has brought forward.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what you seem to be upset about, and I'm pretty sure as well that Gramps has the ability to respond... which he did. But this is an open forum and I was simply trying to understand your position, which still has me a bit perplexed.

I don't see Gramps' post as emotional at all. The reason he gave seems quite logical in that he doesn't think it would be a wise decision for the RNC to potentially deny the voters that make up the base of their party. Do you not see this as being reasonable?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#598
#598
Grand Vol said:
I'm pretty sure Gramps has the ability to respond without needed anyone to fight his battles. However, since you asked, it's heavily implied in his post as thus far in the election cycle he's had really good reasons for his support of different candidates. Or lack thereof.

He's an analytical thinker and voter; generally not one subject to the raw emotions this elections has brought forward.
Click to expand...

Gramps doesn't mind a little help in making his point. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#599
#599
UTCVol said:
If Trump doesn't hit 1237, the voters will have still spoken. He was unable to garner enough support to outright win the nomination according to the rules set by the RNC. I don't think they'll deny it to him if he's close enough, but it will probably require concessions on his part.
Click to expand...


Do you think the party should be doing everything in its power to destroy the candidate the majority of their party has overwhelming chosen thus far in the primaries ?

Do you not see their actions as a slap in the face of all the voters that has voted for Trump?

It isn't about Trump. This could be any candidate. It is about the powers to be of the party telling the voters, screw you, we are going to appoint the candidate of our choosing and expect you to fall in line and support our candidate like good little sheep.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#600
#600
IBlvNTmWrk said:
I'm not quite sure what you seem to be upset about, and I'm pretty sure as well that Gramps has the ability to respond... which he did. But this is an open forum and I was simply trying to understand your position, which still has me a bit perplexed.

I don't see Gramps' post as emotional at all. The reason he gave seems quite logical in that he doesn't think it would be a wise decision for the RNC to potentially deny the voters that make up the base of their party. Do you not see this as being reasonable?
Click to expand...

I always find it hilarious when people see posts as "upset" when a contrary opinion is put out there. I'm not even finished with my second cup of coffee so I'm not even coherent enough yet to be "upset" at Gramps. Like I would be anyway...

This election so far has been about emotions. Raw, unfiltered emotions. The same could be said about any election in general terms, but overall, this one has invoked far more of a divide than in previous years. It's not just a alleged gender divide or a race divide, but a political party divide the likes of which haven't been seen in a long time.

Gramps has been one of the few Kasich supporters from the get-go. Even when it looked like he didn't have a snowball's chance, he kept saying "this is a Presidential guy" and his kept support unwavering. Yet all the sudden, because the GOP decides to back him as a dark horse candidate, he's now "establishment!" and his merits tossed to casually away. And that's an emotional reaction in my opinion. I tend to think fairly highly of Gramps, though we disagree from time to time, but he's generally reasonable and his support for a candidate thoughtful according to his beliefs. And to suddenly flip off the mainstream GOP because they continue to support an anti-Trump ringer at the convention certainly means his rational thought process has to be disturbed for some reason or another.

So Gramps can surely answer for himself why he feels his candidate of so long suddenly became so distasteful as a "pawn" of the establishment. And why he feels voting for Trump, who doesn't represent his values from what I've seen, is the correct pathway other than "because it's against the GOP." Which is a spiteful measure other than a well thought out one.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top