2016 Election

[carlos86]

TRUMP UNHINGED: We’re gonna bring businesses back from Mexico so you can tell them to GO ***** THEMSELVES!!

TRUMP UNHINGED: We?re gonna bring businesses back from Mexico so you can tell them to GO f*** THEMSELVES! » The Right Scoop -

 

[carlos86]

Quinnipiac: GOP vs Hillary among 2016's most important demographic, white women
Trump +2
Cruz +7
Rubio +17

 

[apevol]

I'm checking into hotel reservations for you two (or three?)

 

[n_huffhines]

lol at pass the buck. Like I was the one tossing around that term as a slam any time I thought I could get away with it. And yes, it is a slam whether you intended it or not.

But you really lost the battle when you have to dive into wiki to find a definition for something that cannot be clearly defined. Because by their definition, practically every President we've had for the past 100 years has been a neocon. And the full, unaltered definition:

What are you talking about? I'm trying to come to an understanding. We seem to have different ideas about what makes a neocon. Sorry for trying to get on the same page. You don't like the label, but the label is useful for describing his foreign policy.

You can talk all day about how Reagan and Rand have commonalities with neoconservatives, but what makes them different is what's important. Neocons focus on nation-building. Rand is not interested in that. Reagan was not interested in that. Reagan abandoned the ME because they were too different/crazy. He saw how futile it is.

Rubio is a neocon, meaning nation-building matters a lot to him. Maybe you don't like the label and we can throw it away, but I'm trying to explain that his foreign policy is not conservative, it's not fiscally responsible, and it hasn't been working for the past few administrations.

 

[Grand Vol]

What are you talking about? I'm trying to come to an understanding. We seem to have different ideas about what makes a neocon. Sorry for trying to get on the same page. You don't like the label, but the label is useful for describing his foreign policy.

You can talk all day about how Reagan and Rand have commonalities with neoconservatives, but what makes them different is what's important. Neocons focus on nation-building. Rand is not interested in that. Reagan was not interested in that. Reagan abandoned the ME because they were too different/crazy. He saw how futile it is.

Rubio is a neocon, meaning nation-building matters a lot to him. Maybe you don't like the label and we can throw it away, but I'm trying to explain that his foreign policy is not conservative, it's not fiscally responsible, and it hasn't been working for the past few administrations.

The point being that practically every President, as well as a lot of Senators and Congressmen in the past have supported "nation building." And Rubio hasn't given a very clear answer on that matter when pressed. In fact, it almost appears as if he supports my stance in the matter since he says "not nation building, but helping others build their nation." I'm a huge supporter in helping those who help themselves as we did in Germany and Japan after WWII. With loans and guarantees of assistance or technical help. In effect, the Marshall Plan. I'm not a fan of the way we did it in Iraq where we took the work and sent it to third country nationals and let Iraqis watch as others rebuilt their nations.

So he would need to clarify his statements on "national building" before I can make a qualified judgment as to whether he would continue the failed processes of the previous Administrations or whether he would look at history to give him a great example of how to nation build. You can call him a neocon if you like, but again, the term is so ambiguous it nearly fits each and every President that's been in office in the 20th and 21st centuries.

 

[n_huffhines]

The idea that everyone is doing it shows you that it's part of the establishment (and in the GOP, that's neoconservatism). I am trying to explain that he is part of the establishment and that he's not conservative. You respond by saying, "it's what the establishment does."

OK! :good!:

You can say Reagan did it, but dealing with the ME was still a very new thing back then. Reagan actually reacted to the blowback that he was aware of and backed off. We have 30 more years of blowback to consider, and the establishment is doubling down.

Reagan =/= Rubio

 

[Grand Vol]

The idea that everyone is doing it shows you that it's part of the establishment (and in the GOP, that's neoconservatism). I am trying to explain that he is part of the establishment and that he's not conservative. You respond by saying, "it's what the establishment does."

OK! :good!:

You can say Reagan did it, but dealing with the ME was still a very new thing back then. Reagan actually reacted to the blowback that he was aware of and backed off. We have 30 more years of blowback to consider, and the establishment is doubling down.

Reagan =/= Rubio

Actually, the use of "everyone" was across party lines. So when the term "neocon" is applied to a politician, it certainly can be held against practically anyone in that regard. Lyndon Johnson was a pure Democrat and pushed for that very same thing in Vietnam. Just as much as W did in Iraq. So don't think I'm shoehorning just the GOP with that "everyone" remark.

And yes, Reagan did it too. Whether that was in Central America or even the Middle East (you think all the military equipment just magically appeared in Saudi Arabia in 1990?) he did it too. And especially in the Middle East where he assisted in a power struggle against the Soviets at the time.

 

[Gramps]

The idea that everyone is doing it shows you that it's part of the establishment (and in the GOP, that's neoconservatism). I am trying to explain that he is part of the establishment and that he's not conservative. You respond by saying, "it's what the establishment does."

OK! :good!:

You can say Reagan did it, but dealing with the ME was still a very new thing back then. Reagan actually reacted to the blowback that he was aware of and backed off. We have 30 more years of blowback to consider, and the establishment is doubling down.

Reagan =/= Rubio

If that is the case, Rubio is our next POTUS.

I agree Reagan was not conservative but he did pull the country together, we need someone else that can do the same.

 

[n_huffhines]

Actually, the use of "everyone" was across party lines. So when the term "neocon" is applied to a politician, it certainly can be held against practically anyone in that regard. Lyndon Johnson was a pure Democrat and pushed for that very same thing in Vietnam. Just as much as W did in Iraq. So don't think I'm shoehorning just the GOP with that "everyone" remark.

And yes, Reagan did it too. Whether that was in Central America or even the Middle East (you think all the military equipment just magically appeared in Saudi Arabia in 1990?) he did it too. And especially in the Middle East where he assisted in a power struggle against the Soviets at the time.

We have the benefit of hindsight now. Reagan didn't know we'd be fighting the Taliban after arming them. Reagan didn't know we'd be fighting Saddam after arming him.

Again, we have 30 more years of blowback to consider and we still haven't learned from Reagan's mistakes. Reagan backed off when he could see a quagmire. He didn't see the quagmire that is foreign military assistance.

Also, "crossing party lines" means nothing for the purposes of this conversation. I think we can all agree that Ds stand for big government. The fact that they support it too does not help your case in proving Rubio's conservatism.

 

[n_huffhines]

If that is the case, Rubio is our next POTUS.

I agree Reagan was not conservative but he did pull the country together, we need someone else that can do the same.

That's not what I'm saying.

Ideologically, he was definitely conservative and a great deal of his actions were conservative. He just got carried away with foreign policy/military spending and criminal justice.

 

[hog88]

We have the benefit of hindsight now. Reagan didn't know we'd be fighting the Taliban after arming them. Reagan didn't know we'd be fighting Saddam after arming him.

Again, we have 30 more years of blowback to consider and we still haven't learned from Reagan's mistakes. Reagan backed off when he could see a quagmire. He didn't see the quagmire that is foreign military assistance.

Also, "crossing party lines" means nothing for the purposes of this conversation. I think we can all agree that Ds stand for big government. The fact that they support it too does not help your case in proving Rubio's conservatism.

We didn't. We armed the mujahideen which mostly evolved into the Northern Alliance. You know, the guys who fought with us against the Taliban?

 

[Gramps]

That's not what I'm saying.

Ideologically, he was definitely conservative and a great deal of his actions were conservative. He just got carried away with foreign policy/military spending and criminal justice.

And a great deal of his actions were far from being conservative. I liked Reagan but he governed as a moderate not a conservative. His record is easy to research.

If not for Ollie North he would most likely have been impeached over his illegal foreign policy actions.

 

[n_huffhines]

We didn't. We armed the mujahideen which mostly evolved into the Northern Alliance. You know, the guys who fought with us against the Taliban?

A lot of those rebels we helped to train and arm formed the Taliban. That's what I mean.

 

[hog88]

A lot of those rebels we helped to train and arm formed the Taliban. That's what I mean.

Several did yes. But lets tell the whole story for once.

 

[Gramps]

We didn't. We armed the mujahideen which mostly evolved into the Northern Alliance. You know, the guys who fought with us against the Taliban?

That little thing called "the enemy of our enemy"provided some funding for a guy named Osama Bin Laden also.

The "enemy of our enemy" keeps biting us square on the butt.

Reagan thought he was doing the correct thing providing funding to those fighting the USSR in Afghanistan.

 

[hog88]

That little thing called "the enemy of our enemy"provided some funding for a guy named Osama Bin Laden also.

The "enemy of our enemy" keeps biting us square on the butt.

Reagan thought he was doing the correct thing providing funding to those fighting the USSR in Afghanistan.

We never funded Osama directly. Did he get his hands on some of the hardware, I'm sure he probably did.

 

[n_huffhines]

Several did yes. But lets tell the whole story for once.

I don't know what you mean. Your point doesn't really factor. I'm actually excusing Reagan because he didn't know that he was arming future enemies. I was implying they were allies at the time. Who cares if some of them are still allies? My point remains the same. Reagan didn't know foreign military assistance would be so counterproductive. We now know how counterproductive it is.

 

[hog88]

I don't know what you mean. Your point doesn't really factor. I'm actually excusing Reagan because he didn't know that he was arming future enemies. I was implying they were allies at the time. Who cares if some of them are still allies? My point remains the same. Reagan didn't know foreign military assistance would be so counterproductive. We now know how counterproductive it is.

It's not always counterproductive. That is a broad generalization on your part.

 

[n_huffhines]

It's not always counterproductive. That is a broad generalization on your part.

Well, I didn't say that.

 

[Big Gucci Sosa]

God help us.

Watters Finds Out How Much Bernie Sanders Supporters ACTUALLY Know About Him | Fox News Insider

 

[Gramps]

We never funded Osama directly. Did he get his hands on some of the hardware, I'm sure he probably did.

It goes back to the "enemy of our enemy is our friend" BS policies.

It is true the US did not actually lay cash or train the Arab fighters , we did fund and train the Afghan mujahideen, via Pakistan's ISI intelligence agency. Money flowed down the ladder to the Arab Fighters including Bin Laden.

 

[Grand Vol]

We have the benefit of hindsight now. Reagan didn't know we'd be fighting the Taliban after arming them. Reagan didn't know we'd be fighting Saddam after arming him.

Again, we have 30 more years of blowback to consider and we still haven't learned from Reagan's mistakes. Reagan backed off when he could see a quagmire. He didn't see the quagmire that is foreign military assistance.

Also, "crossing party lines" means nothing for the purposes of this conversation. I think we can all agree that Ds stand for big government. The fact that they support it too does not help your case in proving Rubio's conservatism.

I actually wasn't counting Afghanistan into the Middle East as much as the traditional nations we consider for that. And we haven't learned from 3,000 years of history in Afghanistan since nobody has ever pacified that country after invading. I've said it before and will continue saying we should have gone in, taken out the terrorists with selected airstrikes and special operations activity and never, repeat never, have introduced large scale ground forces.

And did Reagan back off Central America? Are we dealing with 30 years of ramifications from the actions of the 1980s?

Yes, crossing party lines does mean a lot in this conversation. You refuse to admit the term neocon can be applied across the entire political spectrum as opposed to just Rubio. You say he's a neocon. I say the term is vague enough to be applied to every politician out there today. You apply the term to Rubio as a slam. I can apply the term equally across the entire political spectrum, to include Rand, in reference to their actions on the world stage.

The main difference is I can see neocon tendencies in practically the entire spectrum which you refuse to admit. It doesn't change the fact you still can't (or won't) admit it isn't just a "mainstream" GOP thing.

 

[Grand Vol]

And a great deal of his actions were far from being conservative. I liked Reagan but he governed as a moderate not a conservative. His record is easy to research.

He governed by compromise, which is what Presidents should be doing. I wouldn't call him a moderate, but rather a statesman who knew how to get both sides to agree by giving a little up.

 

[hog88]

I don't know what you mean. Your point doesn't really factor. I'm actually excusing Reagan because he didn't know that he was arming future enemies. I was implying they were allies at the time. Who cares if some of them are still allies? My point remains the same. Reagan didn't know foreign military assistance would be so counterproductive. We now know how counterproductive it is.

Well, I didn't say that.

Pretty much implied it.

 

[Gramps]

He governed by compromise, which is what Presidents should be doing. I wouldn't call him a moderate, but rather a statesman who knew how to get both sides to agree by giving a little up.

I agree with your analysis.

I call someone a moderate who realizes that neither side has all the correct answers and is willing to work with both sides.

You call him a stateman.

Whatever word one chooses to use to describe him, Reagan knew how to govern.