POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

at this point, Bernie Sanders could hit Hillary Clinton with a steel chair WWE style and grab the Money In the Bank.. er.. democratic nomination, and the DNC would be more in unity then the Republicans. Ok, that's hyperbole, but not TOO much.

Sanders supporters are much more classy.

Sanders Fans Plan DNC 'Fart-In' Protest of Clinton Nomination - NBC News

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Trump called his wife ugly and claimed his Father had something to do with the JFK assassination. Can't figure out why Cruz wouldn't endorse that man?

To me, he sounded petty. He shouldn't have accepted a speaking role then ...
Anyway, Gringrich clarified Ted's statement

[Thomkal]

Cruz wants the nomination in 2020 so wanted to look like he stood up to Trump all the way to the end.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Cruz wants the nomination in 2020 so wanted to look like he stood up to Trump all the way to the end.

Yup, I get that. That's why he seemed petty to me.

[EagleFan]

Sad that a message of "vote your conscience" is a frightening idea to the sheep.

[EagleFan]

Gingrich is all about fear mongering; that was a rancid speech.

[Dutch]

Newt Gingrich has been my favorite speech of the whole event so far.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Cruz wants the nomination in 2020 so wanted to look like he stood up to Trump all the way to the end.

Yup. I'm surprised someone else didn't do it first (like Ryan).

When Trump loses in November the blame game will begin. Cruz now gets to be the guy who never gave in to Trump.

[Edward64]

Kids looked pissed.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Gingrich is all about fear mongering; that was a rancid speech.

He's a true neo-con.

[Edward64]

Paul Ryan is peppier today introducing Pence.

[Dutch]

Pence seems very likable.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Pence seems very likable.

Unless you're LGBT.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yup. I'm surprised someone else didn't do it first (like Ryan).

When Trump loses in November the blame game will begin. Cruz now gets to be the guy who never gave in to Trump.

Kasich as well.

[JPhillips]

Holy shit. In a sane world this would be the end for Trump, but we've passed that line dozens of times before, so...

He even called into question whether, as president, he would automatically extend the security guarantees that give the 28 members of NATO the assurance that the full force of the United States military has their back.

For example, asked about Russia’s threatening activities that have unnerved the small Baltic States that are the most recent entrants into NATO, Mr. Trump said that if Russia attacked them, he would decide whether to come to their aid only after reviewing whether those nations “have fulfilled their obligations to us.”

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Holy shit. In a sane world this would be the end for Trump, but we've passed that line dozens of times before, so...

I doubt most of his supporters know what NATO is.

[TCY Junkie]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Holy shit. In a sane world this would be the end for Trump, but we've passed that line dozens of times before, so...

I read the whole article where I found that quote. The emphasis was with the problems US is having we need to focus that. I took it, as he will focus on fixing the US. Was trying to make a point he'd do something to help the nation.

[SirFozzie]

So, turns out that the GOP KNEW what was going to happen, the reporters KNEW what was going to happen, and they let him do it anyway. Color me confused.

Jon Murray on Twitter: "I like that she's got a source. Cuz lots of reporters have embargoed copies of Cruz's full text. https://t.co/VwyQyOnoTB"

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by TCY Junkie

I read the whole article where I found that quote. The emphasis was with the problems US is having we need to focus that. I took it, as he will focus on fixing the US. Was trying to make a point he'd do something to help the nation.

You're willfully leaving out what he said. He didn't just say he wanted to renegotiate NATO, he said that in the event of an attack, the U.S. may not do anything to honor its NATO commitments. That's incredibly reckless.

[NobodyHere]

Cleveland Police: Protester Lights Himself On Fire While Trying To Burn American Flag

[TCY Junkie]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You're willfully leaving out what he said. He didn't just say he wanted to renegotiate NATO, he said that in the event of an attack, the U.S. may not do anything to honor its NATO commitments. That's incredibly reckless.

Thought you covered that. I was saying he seemed to have good intentions. Be great if America was able to help everyone but that may not be possible in current situation. I don't get this being as reckless as it is sad. Reality sucks sometimes.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by TCY Junkie

Thought you covered that. I was saying he seemed to have good intentions. Be great if America was able to help everyone but that may not be possible in current situation. I don't get this being as reckless as it is sad. Reality sucks sometimes.

Do you know what NATO is?

[TCY Junkie]

Treaty with several several countries...... we need to be involved in nato but not as much as too expensive. Feel he was trying to make a statement that he'd work on US. And if something came up to put US at risk he'd look at it without jumping into it...... I seemed to get the feeling people thought he'd start wars but here it seems he is trying not to start wars but gets slammed. Ironic.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

So, turns out that the GOP KNEW what was going to happen, the reporters KNEW what was going to happen, and they let him do it anyway. Color me confused.

Not that confusing really.

Remember that, prior to Trump upsetting their apple cart, Cruz was likely THE most hated man for the GOP leadership. This was about letting him cut his own throat & end his political future forever.

The response I'm seeing, even from some very lukewarm Trump maybe voters, has been overwhelmingly that Cruz came off as a lowlife.

I don't think he ever gets to rehab that image no matter what happens in November.

[ColtCrazy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Unless you're LGBT.

or a teacher. or in need of health care. or a fan of Disney movies.

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by TCY Junkie

I seemed to get the feeling people thought he'd start wars but here it seems he is trying not to start wars but gets slammed. Ironic.

In this scenario, it'd be Putin actually starting the war. It'd just be Trump committing treason by not abiding by agreements that the country has committed to upholding.

[EagleFan]

Cruz came off fine. The Trump supporters came off like whiny children that fear the idea of voters voting with their conscience.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

In this scenario, it'd be Putin actually starting the war. It'd just be Trump committing treason by not abiding by agreements that the country has committed to upholding.

Another example of why he is not qualified.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by TCY Junkie

Treaty with several several countries...... we need to be involved in nato but not as much as too expensive. Feel he was trying to make a statement that he'd work on US. And if something came up to put US at risk he'd look at it without jumping into it...... I seemed to get the feeling people thought he'd start wars but here it seems he is trying not to start wars but gets slammed. Ironic.

You want the US to be involved in NATO but not have to abide by the treaty? NATO isn't something you go in half-assed over.

I honestly thought NATO was the one thing both parties agree on. That it was good to have a ton of Western countries have each other's back in the event of a war. Or just as a deterrent to other countries looking to expand their territory. And an added benefit is not having a bunch of these countries starting up their own nuclear programs.

The only negative talk of NATO I've heard is from kooks like Ron Paul.

[RainMaker]

I did find it funny that Laura Ingraham called out the media for being bias and then watched as the media tried to turn her wave to the crowd into a Nazi salute. Like maybe give it an hour before proving her speech right.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You're willfully leaving out what he said. He didn't just say he wanted to renegotiate NATO, he said that in the event of an attack, the U.S. may not do anything to honor its NATO commitments. That's incredibly reckless.

Talk about giving Russia carte blanche to keep reeling in those former SSRs.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Do you know what NATO is?

Originally Posted by TCY Junkie

Treaty with several several countries...... we need to be involved in nato but not as much as too expensive.

Okay, look. NATO isn't just "a treaty." Its purpose was three-fold.

1) prevent the rise of aggressive nationalism in Europe from occurring again
2) serve as a bulwark against Russian/Soviet aggression. And in that sense, it kind of went hand-in-hand with the Marshall Plan - give east/central Europe an alternative to the Russian/Soviet sphere of influence.
3) Install the United States as a superpower counterweight to the USSR and put an end to the isolationism of the first half of the 20th century. By obligating the US to the defense of Europe, the idea was that aggressor states would be less likely to initiate conflict because the United States wouldn't sit out the first 2-4 years of the war as it had done twice before. And, unlike 1916 and 1939, the United States had The Bomb. An extension of the nuclear umbrella to protect non-nuclear European states.

With the end of the Cold War, #2 went away for a while. But that's essentially what it was - the United States guaranteeing Europe's peace. "Look to the West, and don't fear the Russians."

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The response I'm seeing, even from some very lukewarm Trump maybe voters, has been overwhelmingly that Cruz came off as a lowlife.

Democrats and Republicans agree on something! Stop the presses!

Originally Posted by Shkspr

In this scenario, it'd be Putin actually starting the war. It'd just be Trump committing treason by not abiding by agreements that the country has committed to upholding.

It's not treason. The Constitution defines treason pretty narrowly: giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States, or taking up arms against the United States. "Somebody from an ideology I don't like doing a thing I don't agree with" isn't treason.

The other thing about the North Atlantic Treaty is it compels a response from member states, but that response needn't be military. Member states are at their discretion as to what response is best. A President Trump could go deeper with economic sanctions and call it good, if he wanted to. He'd be technically fulfilling the United States' obligations, although it wouldn't be a good look. It would call into question how serious the United States would be about other treaty obligations.

It wouldn't be an abrogation, nor would it be treason, but it might be an embarrassment.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Cleveland Police: Protester Lights Himself On Fire While Trying To Burn American Flag

Awwwww...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The response I'm seeing, even from some very lukewarm Trump maybe voters, has been overwhelmingly that Cruz came off as a lowlife.

Same here, although to be fair, many of the "very lukewarm Trump maybe" voters that I know already couldn't stand Cruz either. They were very firmly Kasich/Rubio supporters.

And that said, I'm still in the place of not seeing how the party can remain one. Remove Trump, and there's still a pretty big split there. If the Dems could refrain from running someone as easily vilified as HRC, it seems to me that a Cruz type would have a hard time getting the Rubio/Kasich type supporters to show up, and vice versa for a Rubio/Kasich type with the Cruz type supporters.

[corbes]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I'm still in the place of not seeing how the party can remain one. Remove Trump, and there's still a pretty big split there. If the Dems could refrain from running someone as easily vilified as HRC, it seems to me that a Cruz type would have a hard time getting the Rubio/Kasich type supporters to show up, and vice versa for a Rubio/Kasich type with the Cruz type supporters.

Agreed, and in addition I think that the Dems will survive this election cycle but have a split of their own coming down the road.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Same here, although to be fair, many of the "very lukewarm Trump maybe" voters that I know already couldn't stand Cruz either. They were very firmly Kasich/Rubio supporters.

I'm not even 'lukewarm' on Trump. To the extent there was any possibility of my voting Republican, it was going to be Rubio or possibly Kasich...but only if McConnell stopped with the SCOTUS dickery. That's the irony, right? If he doesn't put his foot down in February and go "no hearings no nothing fuck the PO-POTUS," and Rubio or Kasich wins the nomination, there's a non-zero chance I would have voted for one of them in the general.

I don't care for Hillary Clinton.

But I'm fucked if I'm going to reward his dickery by voting for a twatwaffle like Trump.

And that said, I'm still in the place of not seeing how the party can remain one. Remove Trump, and there's still a pretty big split there. If the Dems could refrain from running someone as easily vilified as HRC, it seems to me that a Cruz type would have a hard time getting the Rubio/Kasich type supporters to show up, and vice versa for a Rubio/Kasich type with the Cruz type supporters.

If a Trump win could calm the crazies going forward, that might save the GOP, but honestly, I think it would just embolden them. I think the writing is on the wall no matter what, and the question is what emerges and leaves the Tea Party rump behind. Also, how soon.

Originally Posted by corbes

Agreed, and in addition I think that the Dems will survive this election cycle but have a split of their own coming down the road.

We're overdue for something like that, as I mentioned earlier, and I'd agree that it's unlikely to be one party splitting and the other chugging blissfully along. That said, I'd not be shocked if the GOP had their schism this cycle and the Democrats followed suit in the next decade.

The millennial generation is going to cause a political earthquake in the next ten years on both sides of the aisle, I think. Young Republicans aren't as vested in the racial/sexual side of politics as their parents were, and young Democrats are more welcoming of socialism than their parents.

It's going to make for interesting times.

[TCY Junkie]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You want the US to be involved in NATO but not have to abide by the treaty? NATO isn't something you go in half-assed over.

I honestly thought NATO was the one thing both parties agree on. That it was good to have a ton of Western countries have each other's back in the event of a war. Or just as a deterrent to other countries looking to expand their territory. And an added benefit is not having a bunch of these countries starting up their own nuclear programs.

The only negative talk of NATO I've heard is from kooks like Ron Paul.

I see it as a stand for America by him. Also that he wants to change things and expect others to pull more of their weight..... I don't even see this as much more than talk from him to show he will work on this country. He wants people to get riled up about him making a change.

[TCY Junkie]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Talk about giving Russia carte blanche to keep reeling in those former SSRs.





Okay, look. NATO isn't just "a treaty." Its purpose was three-fold.

1) prevent the rise of aggressive nationalism in Europe from occurring again
2) serve as a bulwark against Russian/Soviet aggression. And in that sense, it kind of went hand-in-hand with the Marshall Plan - give east/central Europe an alternative to the Russian/Soviet sphere of influence.
3) Install the United States as a superpower counterweight to the USSR and put an end to the isolationism of the first half of the 20th century. By obligating the US to the defense of Europe, the idea was that aggressor states would be less likely to initiate conflict because the United States wouldn't sit out the first 2-4 years of the war as it had done twice before. And, unlike 1916 and 1939, the United States had The Bomb. An extension of the nuclear umbrella to protect non-nuclear European states.

With the end of the Cold War, #2 went away for a while. But that's essentially what it was - the United States guaranteeing Europe's peace. "Look to the West, and don't fear the Russians."

We are not the same country as we were back then. Treaty needs to be updated. Get other countris to pull more weight. It's a great plan.

[Butter]

Explain "pull their own weight".

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Explain "pull their own weight".

[digamma]

Other than his one tweet, Trump actually seems to be playing the Cruz thing pretty well. Or even stronger, really taking advantage of it by taking a bit of the high road.

Edit: And he appears to have deleted that tweet.

[digamma]

And more substantively, the NATO thing is fairly chilling, but like the influence of social media, I think the likelihood of it having any real impact is pretty small.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Explain "pull their own weight".

NATO Members’ Defense Spending, in Two Charts - Defense One

https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/...0904115706.jpg

Two separate charts I found real quick.

I'd qualify that as a vast majority of NATO countries "not pulling their own weight." AND I'd qualify that as the US spending way too much on Defense (especially relative to their allies).

[Ned Doolittle]

I like Trump's stance/comments on NATO. It shows a hesitancy to throw Americans into whatever calamity is happening on someone else's doorstep. NATO is very one-sided. It's us giving aid to other countries in the event they are attacked. But no one attacks America, so when would Europe come to our aid to make this a mutually beneficial arrangement? NATO is Europe getting into trouble and America footing the bill in the form of financial and military aid - those come from you and I and I support Trump's take on this. In order to make America great again you need to weigh the risk/reward of us automatically engaging in other countries' conflicts. That's the kind of pro-America perspective and dialogue that got Trump the republican nomination. Trump doesn't get to this point without talk like that - I just hope he follows through on all of his extreme views and doesn't turn into Obama from 2008 with all his "Change" that never amounted to much. I'm willing to give him a shot, he should get 4 yr's and if he falls flat on his face then no need to reelect him.

[Warhammer]

I learned Monday that the nations of NATO are not bound or obligated to defend another member from attack militarily. Instead, there is a meeting in which the nations declare their intentions of support:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”

In the event of an attack on the Baltic States, which NATO nations would declare war? Which would not? I see Trumps's comments as a message to other member states to step up their commitment to the organization.

One of the key items in negotiations is sending signals. Sometimes signals are meant as an ultimatum, other times they are meant as a means of setting up a meeting.

[JPhillips]

He's also sending signals to Russia that taking the Baltic States may not cost much. Of course given his praise for Putin, his campaign manager that was on the Kremlin's payroll, and his quiet watering down of support for Ukraine, this is all part of a pattern of support for Putin.

[flere-imsaho]

So basically Trump is Neville Chamberlain.

[Butter]

There is a world where we can both take care of America and continue to be the leader of the free world. Turning our back on Europe, especially in the era of Putin and ISIS seems to be a monumentally bad idea.

NATO is more important now than it has been in 25 years.

Sidebar: We could actually afford to both "take care of our country first" and keep up our current lines of defense if we had actual tax rates that were in line with the rest of the developed world. But that's apparently as much of a non-starter as is gun control, so I doubt that will earn any discussion.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I learned Monday that the nations of NATO are not bound or obligated to defend another member from attack militarily. Instead, there is a meeting in which the nations declare their intentions of support:



In the event of an attack on the Baltic States, which NATO nations would declare war? Which would not? I see Trumps's comments as a message to other member states to step up their commitment to the organization.

One of the key items in negotiations is sending signals. Sometimes signals are meant as an ultimatum, other times they are meant as a means of setting up a meeting.

If Norway and Sweden had a skirmish, I could see that coming into play. If the Russians roll tanks into a member state military action is absolutely the expectation.

I was reading a piece a few days ago arguing that we've forgotten the importance of a stable Europe due to the dying off of the WW2 generation. Reading this thread makes me buy that argument.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Same here, although to be fair, many of the "very lukewarm Trump maybe" voters that I know already couldn't stand Cruz either. They were very firmly Kasich/Rubio supporters.

And that said, I'm still in the place of not seeing how the party can remain one. Remove Trump, and there's still a pretty big split there. If the Dems could refrain from running someone as easily vilified as HRC, it seems to me that a Cruz type would have a hard time getting the Rubio/Kasich type supporters to show up, and vice versa for a Rubio/Kasich type with the Cruz type supporters.

Agreed.

Looking back, I wish Rubio had Jeb Bush's coffers to help prepare him for prime time. Which just goes to prove he was a bit green for this election cycle. We may not see him again, but if he can come back more polished, it would make me feel better about a unified GOP push. As of now. This is basically like the racing world craziness of the 90's.

There once was balance between NASCAR and IRL. Then the IRL split into two and one league finally folded and the other is a shell of its former self and NASCAR dominates.

Political schisms seem healthy but ultimately I guess it leads to a monopoly...which is very very bad in the long run.

[JPhillips]

We may or may not be close to a long term monopoly on the White House, but in every other measurement the GOP is strong. They control the House, Senate, a majority of statehouses and governors, etc.

The country is ideologically diverse, and our system demands a center-left party and a center-right party. Perhaps the GOP will falter and something else will take its place, but that something will eventually look a lot like the GOP.