2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
Quote: AZDuffmanSo, I assume you know it was Hillary.
Pretty sure Hill's financial complaints will end up paling besides Trumps, and I haven't even checked to make sure that's true. And we still have to see his tax records.
Quote: rxwineAnd we still have to see his tax records.
We never will.
He's not worth nearly what he claims to be. The humiliation would literally destroy him. His fragile ego couldn't take that embarrassment.
And he donates almost nothing to charity. He never gave the veterans the $1 million he promised until the Washington Post called him out on it, after all...
Quote: MathExtremistWhy not? He says he will. I mean, that's entirely the opposite of why most people vote for candidates. Most people cast votes because they're hoping their candidate does what they say they'll do. You're voting for Trump yet hoping he doesn't do what he says he's going to do?
That's a really interesting phenomenon. What other promises that Trump has made do you believe he'll actually do vs. not do? Slash taxes on the rich? Mass deportations? Appoint Scalia-clones to SCOTUS?
Um... I know you can read and understand. The answer to your question is in the rest of my quote.
To expand.... I would prefer a candidate who would have said.... "I will do my best to limit refugees as we are now 20 trillion dollars in debt and each refugee costs on average...." But given neither candidate is saying that, Trump is closer.... You think we wont have tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands more refugees under Clinton than Trump?
More later....
Quote: rxwinePretty sure Hill's financial complaints will end up paling besides Trumps, and I haven't even checked to make sure that's true. And we still have to see his tax records.
Exactly what are you basing your opinion of Trump's financial complaints? Hillary's land scheme is proven. No deed delivered, loss of equity if you missed a payment. What are you claiming Trump did?
Are you kidding?Quote: AZDuffmanExactly what are you basing your opinion of Trump's financial complaints? Hillary's land scheme is proven. No deed delivered, loss of equity if you missed a payment. What are you claiming Trump did?
He's a serial tax evader:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/15/new-evidence-donald-trump-didn-t-pay-taxes.html
He lies about making charitable donations:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-charities-fraud-laws-224510
And here's an encyclopedic article from the Atlantic about Trump's malfeasance going back decades:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/donald-trump-scandals/474726/
He's been in court more times than anyone can count, and he's paid over $1,600,000 just in the fines and settlements that were disclosed publicly.
It is the height of hypocrisy when Donald J. Trump calls anyone "crooked." Why on Earth do you trust him to run anything?
Quote: AZDuffmanExactly what are you basing your opinion of Trump's financial complaints? Hillary's land scheme is proven. No deed delivered, loss of equity if you missed a payment. What are you claiming Trump did?
What was she convicted of?
How many things has Trump been accused of? Would you like to guess on that and compare to Hillary?
Anyone really want to compare the Clinton's misdeeds in real estate with Trumps ?
Quote:
The head of the Democratic National Committee will not speak at the party's convention next week, a decision reached by party officials Saturday after emails surfaced that raised questions about the committee's impartiality during the Democratic primary.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, whose stewardship of the DNC has been under fire through most of the presidential primary process, will not have a major speaking role in an effort "to keep the peace" in the party, a Democrat familiar with the decision said. The revelation comes following the release of nearly 20,000 emails.
[...]
The Democrat familiar with the decision said it was done in hopes of preventing chaos on the convention floor among Sanders supporters.
The decision was blessed by Clinton and Sanders officials, this Democrat said.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politics/dnc-wikileaks-emails/
Essentially the same odds as either crapping out or getting a 7 on a come out roll......
For those craps players here.... Clinton wins if you set a point or roll a yo....
Can we save 4 months of drivel and just roll the dice one time?
--I don't accuse Hillary of anything involved with the emails; we'll see if anything shows up that implicates her in the effort.
--Hillary's campaign has doubled down on dumb by naming DWS a part of their campaign. Shouldn't she just have been allowed to fade into the background forever?
--Bernie appear to be rolling over and playing dead, as a good partisan should when confronted with corruption within the party (yeah, right) and seems to have forgotten that he called this all along. So for those of you who called Ted Cruz's position "principled", what about the Bern's?
Anyway, the RNC supposedly had a lackluster convention and a "dark" speech by the nominee, but the DNC is trying to top them. I did not watch the convention last week; I was on vacation...
Quote: RonC--Hillary's campaign has doubled down on dumb by naming DWS a part of their campaign. Shouldn't she just have been allowed to fade into the background forever?
I agree. (*gasp*)
It's a stupid move by the Clinton campaign. Bernie supporters really hate DWS. She should just go away.
Quote: JimRockfordFun fact of the day: Over the last decade, roughly 1 million more illegal immigrants have left our country than have entered it.
Good for them! I hope that the trend continues and is accelerated by policy changes to help us improve the flow back to their countries of origin.
Of course, a lot left due to the slow recovery from the recession, so a booming economy in the future might have a lot more trying to enter.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/
Quote: RonCHere we go with the email issues again...so the DNC Chair has to resign due to WikiLeaks providing emails proving that the party apparatus was engaged in assuring the nomination of Hillary Clinton.
--I don't accuse Hillary of anything involved with the emails; we'll see if anything shows up that implicates her in the effort.
--Hillary's campaign has doubled down on dumb by naming DWS a part of their campaign. Shouldn't she just have been allowed to fade into the background forever?
--Bernie appear to be rolling over and playing dead, as a good partisan should when confronted with corruption within the party (yeah, right) and seems to have forgotten that he called this all along. So for those of you who called Ted Cruz's position "principled", what about the Bern's?
Anyway, the RNC supposedly had a lackluster convention and a "dark" speech by the nominee, but the DNC is trying to top them. I did not watch the convention last week; I was on vacation...
I think you're assuming facts not in evidence, at least yet, in determining conclusions from what's been reported.
The out-of-context DWS sentence about Bernie never being President was reportedly written last fall. On Sept 14, WaPo reported the latest polling had Clinton at 42%, Sanders 24%, Biden 21%. Clinton’s numbers were newly down due to email reporting at that time. Is it unreasonable for DWS to say Sanders won't be President, looking at those numbers? I don't think it is. Just one possible alternative explanation, could be many others.
I also don't know what the religious context is, but it's true there was a Lieberman backlash as vp nom, widely reported at the time. Pragmatic professional pols would be foolish not to be aware of US anti-semitism. Cherrypicking private emails, who knows what the full discussion was.
Stepping down is also not an admission of wrongdoing, especially in campaign movements. Sanders camp has been calling for DWS to step down for months, so this is not out of the blue. Other top officials, including in the Trump campaign, have stepped down to signal a change of direction or focus. She might well have done so to placate progressives, recognizing that party unity is more important than any one person.
You could be right in your conclusions. But there's not enough information released to confirm it, so I think you're premature at best.
Maybe, but I don't know how popular she is in Florida. If she's popular in Florida and helps Hillary carry that state, it's game over for Trump. But I honestly don't know, Florida politics isn't on my radar.Quote: ams288I agree. (*gasp*)
It's a stupid move by the Clinton campaign. Bernie supporters really hate DWS. She should just go away.
But here's my concern -- everyone's making a big deal of how the DWS had her thumb on the scale for Hillary over Bernie, but does nobody care at all that Vladimir Putin has his thumb on the scale for Trump over Hillary? The machinations of internal politics is one thing, but international espionage and interfering in a foreign election is much bigger deal, isn't it?
My source in also Pew ReaserchQuote: RonCGood for them! I hope that the trend continues and is accelerated by policy changes to help us improve the flow back to their countries of origin.
Of course, a lot left due to the slow recovery from the recession, so a booming economy in the future might have a lot more trying to enter.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/
I agree, we still have work to do, but they can't tell me it's a crisis requiring expensive and desperate measures.
Quote: MathExtremistMaybe, but I don't know how popular she is in Florida. If she's popular in Florida and helps Hillary carry that state, it's game over for Trump. But I honestly don't know, Florida politics isn't on my radar.
But here's my concern -- everyone's making a big deal of how the DWS had her thumb on the scale for Hillary over Bernie, but does nobody care at all that Vladimir Putin has his thumb on the scale for Trump over Hillary? The machinations of internal politics is one thing, but international espionage and interfering in a foreign election is much bigger deal, isn't it?
Trump has said he could see us pulling back from NATO, which would give Russia a free pass to do whatever they want in that region.
Quote: MathExtremistBut here's my concern -- everyone's making a big deal of how the DWS had her thumb on the scale for Hillary over Bernie, but does nobody care at all that Vladimir Putin has his thumb on the scale for Trump over Hillary? The machinations of internal politics is one thing, but international espionage and interfering in a foreign election is much bigger deal, isn't it?
I suspect that story is just beginning... We will be hearing a lot more about Trump and the Russians in the days, weeks, and months to come.
It was reported today that some DNC staffer who was doing oppo research on Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort had her personal email account hacked by "state-sponsored actors"... hmmmmm.....
Quote: ams288It was reported today that some DNC staffer who was doing oppo research on Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort had her personal email account hacked by "state-sponsored actors"... hmmmmm.....
This is very interesting....we "know" the Russians hacked the DNC; no one "knows" if HRC was hacked or not...
Quote: RonCThis is very interesting....we "know" the Russians hacked the DNC; no one "knows" if HRC was hacked or not...
Because it is possible HRC wasn't hacked, as much as that disappoints the "lock her up" crowd.
Quote: RonCThis is very interesting....we "know" the Russians hacked the DNC; no one "knows" if HRC was hacked or not...
Not really.
We KNOW the DNC emails were hacked because they were leaked. The FBI released Clinton emails.
Quote: gamerfreakTrump has said he could see us pulling back from NATO, which would give Russia a free pass to do whatever they want in that region.
The NATO problem is out there for all to see...pressure needs to be put on those not doing their share. Are you for spilling American blood in foreign lands to protect them when they fail to meet the requirements for that protection?
"Speaking this month in Brussels, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned our European allies in NATO that freeloading on America's outsized military might cannot guarantee their security forever. Or even in the near term, which Gates said could soon turn "dismal" for the alliance. "
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-06-21-US-stuck-with-NATO-bill_n.htm
Quote: gamerfreakNot really.
We KNOW the DNC emails were hacked because they were leaked. The FBI released Clinton emails.
Actually, the State Department released them...and you missed the point. We don't "know" that it was the Russians who hacked the DNC (though they are suspected and one firm insists it was them, another hacker says that he did it and not the Russians) and we also don't "know" that HRC's have not been hacked. The people hacking these things don't always tell what they have and the same folks who claim to have done the DNC hacking also claimed to hack HRC.
Someone on Twitter pointed out that this is not a "oh, both sides do it" issue. The last time something like this happened was Watergate.
Quote: ams288Isn't the FBI looking into the DNC hacking? What if they find a link back to the Trump campaign/Paul Manafort's ties to Russia??
Someone on Twitter pointed out that this is not a "oh, both sides do it" issue. The last time something like this happened was Watergate.
Yes, the FBI is looking into it. If they find actual ties to Russia, or even to someone else hacking the system, it should be prosecuted if the evidence supports prosecution. If that leads to a particular person, those folks should be prosecuted.
Quote: MathExtremist
But here's my concern -- everyone's making a big deal of how the DWS had her thumb on the scale for Hillary over Bernie, but does nobody care at all that Vladimir Putin has his thumb on the scale for Trump over Hillary? The machinations of internal politics is one thing, but international espionage and interfering in a foreign election is much bigger deal, isn't it?
Big deal. Foreign leaders do it all the time, including Obama in Israel. The DNC thing is more important because the DNC gave favoritism where it should have had none.
Quote: billryanRush will love that.
I want to hear the reaction when Trump becomes President and pardons Hillary for anything she may or may not have done.
Ok, I get it. Foreign espionage against the U.S. political process is okay as long as it benefits Donald Trump. If there were evidence that Finland had hacked the RNC and posted stolen information in an attempt to smear the GOP and tilt the election toward Hillary, you would be losing your mind right now.Quote: AZDuffmanBig deal. Foreign leaders do it all the time, including Obama in Israel. The DNC thing is more important because the DNC gave favoritism where it should have had none.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe DNC thing is more important because the DNC gave favoritism where it should have had none.
They are spinning this to deflect that reality by talking constantly about the Russians. There are, of course, two problems...
--The actual hacking
--the content of the emails
If they spin it so the first one is most prominent, they are hoping their side's dumber people will not notice and the smarter ones will not say anything about the other issue. They think they have all the "bright bulbs" on their side and the dim ones are on the other; apparently they don't remember some of the idiotic statements about not having to pay the bills when Obama was elected. Plenty of "dumb" to go around...
At least some of the liberals on here are not in denial of the issues here...
Quote: MathExtremistOk, I get it. Foreign espionage against the U.S. political process is okay as long as it benefits Donald Trump. If there were evidence that Finland had hacked the RNC and posted stolen information in an attempt to smear the GOP and tilt the election toward Hillary, you would be losing your mind right now.
Foreign entities will do what foreign entities do. We will do what we will do. We try to stop them; they try to access all of our systems. It isn't okay, but it is really no surprise. They naturally want to influence things in ways that help them. Everyone knows that, so it isn't like some big state secret. It really doesn't matter who THEY like in our election.
If the emails said nothing of harm, we wouldn't be talking about them...just the hacking. They do contain unfavorable information about the conduct of the DNC, so that is the larger issue right now.
The Dems are trying hard to deflect from that. It is their only defense.
Quote: MathExtremistOk, I get it. Foreign espionage against the U.S. political process is okay as long as it benefits Donald Trump. If there were evidence that Finland had hacked the RNC and posted stolen information in an attempt to smear the GOP and tilt the election toward Hillary, you would be losing your mind right now.
It was not Russian espionage against the USA, it was against the DNC.
It did not matter to the left when someone recorded Romney and the "47%" remarks at all, so I really do not care who hacked the DNC. It does not matter to lefties about Hillary using a private server despite security risks so I am not going to care when server security bites the DNC.
IOW, there have been dirty tricks to smear the GOP. I had to deal with it, now liberals can deal with it.
That's like defending a blackmailer by blaming the victim for getting into the position where they could be blackmailed in the first place. Yes, the bias is/was disturbing, I totally agree. But I also don't really think it mattered in the final analysis. Do you think that, but for Wasserman-Schultz's bias, Bernie would have made up the 3M+ vote differential and actually won the nomination?Quote: RonCForeign entities will do what foreign entities do. We will do what we will do. We try to stop them; they try to access all of our systems. It isn't okay, but it is really no surprise. They naturally want to influence things in ways that help them. Everyone knows that, so it isn't like some big state secret. It really doesn't matter who THEY like in our election.
If the emails said nothing of harm, we wouldn't be talking about them...just the hacking. They do contain unfavorable information about the conduct of the DNC, so that is the larger issue right now.
The Dems are trying hard to deflect from that. It is their only defense.
And yes, it absolutely does matter who the Russians like in our election if they are actively infiltrating our systems, spying on our citizens, and waging an information campaign that attempts to buy that U.S. President. Doesn't matter whether it's Trump or Clinton, but it matters that it's happening. The magnitude of the threat to our democracy from what the DNC did is minimal. The magnitude of the threat to our democracy from a foreign regime with nukes pointed at us is not, especially if the U.S. President becomes a puppet of that regime.
Quote: MathExtremistThat's like defending a blackmailer by blaming the victim for getting into the position where they could be blackmailed in the first place.
No, it is not. It is something that we know is happening and we should do everything we can to prevent it, but ANYONE sending anything over a network has a risk of being hacked. If it isn't something you would say in the open, don't say it in an email.
I said several times that we should go after the hackers.
Quote: MathExtremistYes, the bias is/was disturbing, I totally agree. But I also don't really think it mattered in the final analysis. Do you think that, but for Wasserman-Schultz's bias, Bernie would have made up the 3M+ vote differential and actually won the nomination?
I don't THINK it would have mattered but that is not the point--DWS was charged with running a fair process as the DNC Chair. She did not do so. She resigned as part of the price of that bias.
Quote: MathExtremistAnd yes, it absolutely does matter who the Russians like in our election if they are actively infiltrating our systems, spying on our citizens, and waging an information campaign that attempts to buy a U.S. President. The magnitude of the threat to our democracy from what the DNC did is minimal. The magnitude of the threat to our democracy from a foreign regime with nukes pointed at us is not, especially if the U.S. President becomes a puppet of that regime.
...and the Republicans are the ones with all the conspiracy theories.
The Russians will always spy on us. They may try to manipulate some things. We will do the same.
That doesn't make either candidate a potential "puppet"...
I'm not sure the word "potential" applies here.Quote: RonCThe Russians will always spy on us. They may try to manipulate some things. We will do the same.
That doesn't make either candidate a potential "puppet"...
Quote: New York TimesMr. Mook also suggested that the Russians might have good reason to support Mr. Trump: The Republican nominee indicated in an interview with The New York Times last week that he might not back NATO nations if they came under attack from Russia — unless he was first convinced that the countries had made sufficient contributions to the Atlantic alliance.
It was a remarkable moment: Even at the height of the Cold War, it was hard to find a presidential campaign willing to charge that its rival was essentially secretly doing the bidding of a key American adversary. But the accusation is emerging as a theme of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, as part of an attempt to portray Mr. Trump not only as an isolationist, but also as one who would go soft on confronting Russia as it threatens nations that have shown too much independence from Moscow or, in the case of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, joined NATO.
And yes, the DWS matter was shameful and if it were me, I would have fallen on my sword and not even attended the convention. But if it were me I wouldn't have attempted to bias the will of the voters in the first place, so...
Quote: MathExtremistDo you think that, but for Wasserman-Schultz's bias, Bernie would have made up the 3M+ vote differential and actually won the nomination?
He just might have. Remember, here was a guy who had the establishment probably more against him than Trump. Who from the get-go was behind because of the superdelegate system. And who denied Hillary a mathematical lock-up until the very end. Then remember why they had the supers in the first place. They had them because Democrat Party primary voters had picked some real losers over the years, starting with McGovern. IOW, it is not a party who automatically diverges to the safest choice.
Quote: MathExtremistI'm not sure the word "potential" applies here.
And yes, the DWS matter was shameful and if it were me, I would have fallen on my sword and not even attended the convention. But if it were me I wouldn't have attempted to bias the will of the voters in the first place, so...
Deleted. #{€%'s
Quote: Fox NewsBRET BAIER: Both the campaign chair and anybody you talk to, including Senator Murphy would not go down that road once pressed on the connection between Russia and the Trump campaign. But they have thrown it out there. George?
GEORGE WILL: Well, it's the sort of thing we might learn if we saw the candidates' tax returns. Perhaps one more reason why we're not seeing his tax returns because he is deeply involved in dealing with Russia oligarchs and others. Whether that's good, bad or indifferent it's probably the reasonable surmise.
Quote: MathExtremistI'm not sure the word "potential" applies here.
Quote: QuoteNew York Times
Mr. Mook also suggested that the Russians might have good reason to support Mr. Trump: The Republican nominee indicated in an interview with The New York Times last week that he might not back NATO nations if they came under attack from Russia — unless he was first convinced that the countries had made sufficient contributions to the Atlantic alliance.
It was a remarkable moment: Even at the height of the Cold War, it was hard to find a presidential campaign willing to charge that its rival was essentially secretly doing the bidding of a key American adversary. But the accusation is emerging as a theme of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, as part of an attempt to portray Mr. Trump not only as an isolationist, but also as one who would go soft on confronting Russia as it threatens nations that have shown too much independence from Moscow or, in the case of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, joined NATO.
So...you are taking a Clinton campaign position on Trump and representing it as a potential to be a "puppet" of Putin?
Trump is pushing NATO allies to keep up their end of the bargain. Only a few do so. Are you willing to send your son or daughter off to defend a country that refuses to defend itself per the agreement it has entered for protection? It is something that needs to be said and they need to be pushed.
It is funny how people on your side ignore the generous donations of other countries to the Clinton Foundation and somehow believe that they were all given without any strings attached.
Maybe, using your logic, there is the "potential" for more than one of them to be a puppet.
I would tend to believe neither one of them wold be a puppet.
Quote: MathExtremistAnd now George Will believes it's a "reasonable surmise" that the reason Trump won't release his taxes is because it will show his connections to Russian oligarchs.
George Will didn't get his way and he is a sore loser.
Keep those conspiracy theories coming...
Quote: MathExtremistThe magnitude of the threat to our democracy from what the DNC did is minimal.
One would think that someone who went to school would know that our country is a republic. Maybe you ditched class that day.
I agree that they need to be pushed, but there's a vast difference between applying pressure to contribute and withholding military help unless money is paid. If Russia invades Estonia, do you really advocate not doing anything until Estonia forks over a bunch of money?Quote: RonCTrump is pushing NATO allies to keep up their end of the bargain. Only a few do so. Are you willing to send your son or daughter off to defend a country that refuses to defend itself per the agreement it has entered for protection? It is something that needs to be said and they need to be pushed.
Here's what I think. I think that a Russian military expansion in eastern Europe needs to be countered even if the US foots 100% of the bill. It's no different than the firefighters who put out a fire in a condo highrise even if that particular tenant is late on his property taxes. They put the fire out and worry about getting paid later. If the fire isn't put out -- regardless of who pays for it -- the fire will spread and could even get close to your friend's luxury condo on the top floor. And if you think an expansionist Russia isn't equivalent to a condo fire, we have very different views on foreign policy.
Quote: JimRockfordNot sure what workload Donald would be taking. I guess he would be in charge of tweeting and calling cable talk shows.
Making America great again, obvi.
Quote: SOOPOOOn some articles on yahoo or AOL, after the article it goes to either a Clinton or Trump summary with "odds of winning 2016 presidential election". It was as low as 21% for Trump but is now listed at 28%.
Essentially the same odds as either crapping out or getting a 7 on a come out roll......
For those craps players here.... Clinton wins if you set a point or roll a yo....
Can we save 4 months of drivel and just roll the dice one time?
The 538 election forecast is pretty interesting. Currently, the "poll-plus" forecast (basically their best prediction) is breaking 60/40 for Clinton. But Trump got a sizable convention bump, so let's check back in after the Dem convention.
Trump is actually winning the "now-cast," what would happen if the election were today.
Trump also getting just under 2/1 on a lot of betting markets...(lost my link here).
Quote: AcesAndEightsThe 538 election forecast is pretty interesting. Currently, the "poll-plus" forecast (basically their best prediction) is breaking 60/40 for Clinton. But Trump got a sizable convention bump, so let's check back in after the Dem convention.
Unless a very major development happens soon, a week or two after Democratic conventions, both conventions just fade in importance quickly IMO.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/11184436
I don't think this will be the last repudiation of DJT's usurpation of the GOP. It seems unlikely that the GOP as an institution will survive this election cycle intact. There are too many sensible conservatives who aren't juvenile fear mongering bullies to not regroup under some other banner.
Is anyone offering a line on whether some high-profile charges (like fraud or racketeering) will be brought against Trump at an inopportune time, say in mid-October? Or a ruling in a pending case? I wonder how the odds makers are factoring in those issues.Quote: AcesAndEightsThe 538 election forecast is pretty interesting. Currently, the "poll-plus" forecast (basically their best prediction) is breaking 60/40 for Clinton. But Trump got a sizable convention bump, so let's check back in after the Dem convention.
Trump is actually winning the "now-cast," what would happen if the election were today.
Trump also getting just under 2/1 on a lot of betting markets...(lost my link here).
Quote: MathExtremistI agree that they need to be pushed, but there's a vast difference between applying pressure to contribute and withholding military help unless money is paid. If Russia invades Estonia, do you really advocate not doing anything until Estonia forks over a bunch of money?
Here's what I think. I think that a Russian military expansion in eastern Europe needs to be countered even if the US foots 100% of the bill. It's no different than the firefighters who put out a fire in a condo highrise even if that particular tenant is late on his property taxes. They put the fire out and worry about getting paid later. If the fire isn't put out -- regardless of who pays for it -- the fire will spread and could even get close to your friend's luxury condo on the top floor. And if you think an expansionist Russia isn't equivalent to a condo fire, we have very different views on foreign policy.
If it came right down to it, I believe that Trump left an opening wide enough for the defense of ANY NATO ally that is attacked. I don't think my personal position on foreign policy is that significantly different than yours stated above but I do think it is necessary and prudent to ask ALL treaty members to come in compliance with the terms of the agreement. That would be a significant way of them saying that the alliance is important to each country and that they really do stand by us in both deed and word.
Quote: MathExtremistOne small victory for conscience and convictions:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/11184436
I don't think this will be the last repudiation of DJT's usurpation of the GOP. It seems unlikely that the GOP as an institution will survive this election cycle intact. There are too many sensible conservatives who aren't juvenile fear mongering bullies to not regroup under some other banner.
I think that the party will necessarily change but I don't think some new party will emerge. Both the Trump and Sanders successes in the campaign underscore a problem the "people" have with politics as usual; the only real reason the Democrats don't have a similar problem right this minute is that Bernie didn't win the nomination. The fact that a huge percentage of votes in the primaries were for outsiders shows dissatisfaction with career politicians and the parties as they are. You can attempt to write off all folks who support Trump as "juvenile fear mongering bullies" but what do you call the Bernie folks? They aren't just going away, either. Both parties have things to work on.
