POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[corbes]

A godfather does not invite attacks upon his friends.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by 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.

Honestly, I think a non-endorsement by Cruz was a huge win for Trump. If Cruz endorses, Trump, people just poo-poo it as everyone jumping on board with the winner. Cruz refusing to do so shows well for Trump. He gets the benefit of being someone who allows people to speak despite not being on board with him. It also totally destroyed Cruz's political career, which has to delight Trump to no end.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by corbes

A godfather does not invite attacks upon his friends.

He's viewing these countries not as friends, but shop owners. He's looking for more protection money.

[corbes]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

He's viewing these countries not as friends, but shop owners. He's looking for more protection money.

Yes, but the godfather would not convey that message publicly. It's something for Clemenza to handle in private.

[rowech]

Long term -- assuming Trump loses, does Kasich or Cruz come out better?

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Honestly, I think a non-endorsement by Cruz was a huge win for Trump. If Cruz endorses, Trump, people just poo-poo it as everyone jumping on board with the winner. Cruz refusing to do so shows well for Trump. He gets the benefit of being someone who allows people to speak despite not being on board with him. It also totally destroyed Cruz's political career, which has to delight Trump to no end.

I'm not sure I would say Cruz telling his followers not to vote for Trump is a huge win. I'm far from an expert, but to me a huge win would've been him saying something like, "We've talked, I've come to know him better, he believes in principles we think are important, and that's why I'm giving my endorsement to Trump and will campaign for him in the fall."

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by rowech

Long term -- assuming Trump loses, does Kasich or Cruz come out better?

I think that depends on how much he loses by. If he loses Ohio by a narrow now which causes him to lose the presidency, then I think a lot of blame will go to Kasich and Cruz. It'd be like the liberals and Ralph Nader in 2000. People will be saying "if only they had lent support we would have won."

But if Trump gets crushed, then the Ted Cruz camp will be able to say "I told you so, we need to get back to the constitution and have a candidate that in good conscience the American people can vote for."

Just my layman's opinion.

[Ned Doolittle]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

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.

We are taxed at a rate that is more than enough to advance our country and improve the lives of its citizens. Why should I be taxed more just so we can afford to additionally provide for other countries? Bad argument on your part. The ppl who are pro-Trump, myself included, are not going to want to hear about helping other countries before American citizens are assisted. Wrong crowd my friend.

Just hoping all of Trump's talk isn't rhetoric. Build that wall, kick out illegal aliens and let every country with alligator arms start footing the bill.

[digamma]

Where did you read that we would take care of other countries first? Do you know what foreign aid is as a percentage of the federal budget?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Ned Doolittle

The ppl who are pro-Trump, myself included, are not going to want to hear about helping other countries before American citizens are assisted. Wrong crowd my friend.

But wait, I thought "All Lives Matter." I guess that should be changed to "All American Lives Matter."

[Warhammer]

The problem is many in NATO have neglected their military because of the alliance.

Not knowing what Trump is thinking, but saying that the US will have to look to internal affairs could be a message to alliance members to start increasing their military funding.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But wait, I thought "All Lives Matter." I guess that should be changed to "All American Lives Matter."

All American Citizen Lives matter.

Personally, I want the President to put American interests first. That starts with the well being of its citizens. However, just like I do not give my kids everything they want to teach self reliance, discipline (to get what they want by saving, etc.), and the value of hard work, the President does not need to give a blank check to citizens for everything that feels good I the moment either.

[Thomkal]

George W Bush thinks he may be the last Republican President:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/19/politi...ent/index.html

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Personally, I want the President to put American interests first.

Like the stability and sovereignty of our key trading partners, also known as markets for our goods & services?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Like the stability and sovereignty of our key trading partners, also known as markets for our goods & services?

No to mention they provide the majority of the goods that drive our economy. The days of 'going it alone' are a thing of the past.

[JPhillips]

We don't support NATO for charity. We do it because it's in both our long and short term interest to do so. Since the creation of NATO Europe has enjoyed a length of relative peace unlike any it history. That benefits us, both in terms of market stability and by not having to spend for war and war's aftermath.

I actually agree with the idea that we shouldn't have so cavalierly included former Soviet client states. Starting a nuclear war over Estonia, for example, really is stupid. But, alliances don't work if one partner refuses to honor the terms, and breaking NATO would put every other alliance at risk.

The Russians would love this, and are already probably making plans to test the limits of a Trump admin. We've forgotten not only the benefits of a stable Europe, but also the dangers of Russian aggression.

Ask the original America Firsters, putting America first can quickly lead to putting Americans into a European war.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Honestly, I think a non-endorsement by Cruz was a huge win for Trump. If Cruz endorses, Trump, people just poo-poo it as everyone jumping on board with the winner. Cruz refusing to do so shows well for Trump. He gets the benefit of being someone who allows people to speak despite not being on board with him. It also totally destroyed Cruz's political career, which has to delight Trump to no end.

The presidential race as choreographed by WWE.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Ned Doolittle

We are taxed at a rate that is more than enough to advance our country and improve the lives of its citizens. Why should I be taxed more just so we can afford to additionally provide for other countries? Bad argument on your part. The ppl who are pro-Trump, myself included, are not going to want to hear about helping other countries before American citizens are assisted. Wrong crowd my friend.

Just hoping all of Trump's talk isn't rhetoric. Build that wall, kick out illegal aliens and let every country with alligator arms start footing the bill..

Same argument I was going to make as JPhillips above. We're not in NATO for the good feelings it gives us. Most actually believe that advancing American interests abroad is good for advancing the lives of American citizens as a whole.

Being a part of the global economy and furthering capitalist interest abroad = $$$ for domestic companies. How many want to do business in unstable markets with unstable governments that are constantly fearing for their borders?

We don't keep this giant military around because we like supporting other countries. We are supporting other countries only insomuch as it furthers our own self-interest.

Seems like both a good argument AND the right crowd, my friend.

[digamma]

Yes, that's a good point. My point on the foreign aid budget was separate and addressed the tangent that Ned seemed to go down that we weren't putting America first. Even if you include NATO as foreign aid, the amount we spend there and on pure foreign aid is so miniscule compared to our government spending.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by digamma

Yes, that's a good point. My point on the foreign aid budget was separate and addressed the tangent that Ned seemed to go down that we weren't putting America first. Even if you include NATO as foreign aid, the amount we spend there and on pure foreign aid is so miniscule compared to our government spending.

Here's the thing. The small shit adds up too. Might add up slower than the big shit, but it adds up all the same. It's bad fiscal planning to simply ignore the smaller sources of waste because it's such a miniscule piece of the pie. Pissing away a million here and a million there is probably easier to fix anyway, and, again - it all adds up.

(For the record, I'm not advocating a complete ending of foreign aid and/or NATO spending here - I'm saying this in a more broad term. It always bugs me when people say "oh, but that's just only a few million/billion dollars, it's such a tiny problem").

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by TCY Junkie

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.

We're still basically the largest military power in the world and the guarantor of peace for most of Europe. France and the UK have nukes these days, but those nukes have an outsize place in their military considering respective spending by the US and either of those two.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Here's the thing. The small shit adds up too. Might add up slower than the big shit, but it adds up all the same. It's bad fiscal planning to simply ignore the smaller sources of waste because it's such a miniscule piece of the pie. Pissing away a million here and a million there is probably easier to fix anyway, and, again - it all adds up.

(For the record, I'm not advocating a complete ending of foreign aid and/or NATO spending here - I'm saying this in a more broad term. It always bugs me when people say "oh, but that's just only a few million/billion dollars, it's such a tiny problem").

But that's the thing. This isn't a small shit type deal. It's a big deal to have a stake in world affairs and it doesn't cost us very much. Cut foreign aid to zero and we'd look like schmoes and wouldn't have even made a scratch in the federal budget.

[albionmoonlight]

Over/Under on the amount of times Trump refers to Cruz in his speech (including pronouns)?

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by digamma

But that's the thing. This isn't a small shit type deal. It's a big deal to have a stake in world affairs and it doesn't cost us very much. Cut foreign aid to zero and we'd look like schmoes and wouldn't have even made a scratch in the federal budget.

Please note my addendum to my original post.

Originally Posted by Me

(For the record, I'm not advocating a complete ending of foreign aid and/or NATO spending here - I'm saying this in a more broad term. It always bugs me when people say "oh, but that's just only a few million/billion dollars, it's such a tiny problem").

What I'm saying is there are almost certainly MANY places of waste in every facet of our government spending that can and should be examined. How much of an impact it has on our overall debt should not matter - if you can eliminate points of waste, you should. I'm not specifically targeting foreign aid and / or our contributions to NATO. I'm specifically targeting the general idea of "this is such a small thing, why do we care if it's wasteful?"

Though, I do have issues with sending aid to certain countries that are otherwise hostile to us and I also think we should be heavily pressuring NATO members to contribute more to their own defense spending. But, as I said, this is a far different thing than "cut all foreign aid / cut all foreign troops".

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Over/Under on the amount of times Trump refers to Cruz in his speech (including pronouns)?

"HE MADE A PLEDGE AND THEN HE WENT BACK ON IT!!! I TOLD YOU HE WAS LYIN' TED!!!!!1"

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

"HE MADE A PLEDGE AND THEN HE WENT BACK ON IT!!! I TOLD YOU HE WAS LYIN' TED!!!!!1"

Wait a minute....what's that music...it can't be...IT IS! Ted Cruz is in the building! He rushes towards the ring!

Trump tries to run through the stands, but wait...no! Kasich is there waiting for him! Here comes the double suplex! Trump's out cold! It's all over!

-arena goes dark-

What's this ... what now?!!?!?

-cue the pyrotechnics and lights-

OH MY GOD! It's Hillary in the ring! She's applauding Cruz and Kasich! They were in it together the whole time! God almightly, what have they done?!?!?

[cartman]

Gamblers are taking bets on Trump’s RNC speech | New York Post

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by cartman

No to mention they provide the majority of the goods that drive our economy. The days of 'going it alone' are a thing of the past.

Majority? Is that true? The majority of the manufactured goods in this country come from other countries?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Majority? Is that true? The majority of the manufactured goods in this country come from other countries?

Here's how I arrived at the number:

The US GDP last year was ~$18.5 trillion. Making up that number, about 77.5% was for services, 20.8% was manufacturing, and the rest was agriculture. Which means the share of GDP for manufacturing was around $3.8 trillion.

The US imported $2.35 trillion worth of goods last year and exported $1.62 trillion. It isn't an exact number, because it isn't a 1 to 1 relationship, but if you compare imported goods to US manufacturing output minus what we exported, it is a bit more than half.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

If the Dems could refrain from running someone as easily vilified as HRC

Except they really don't have much of a bench that can't get tarred with it.

Association with HRC or Obama is more than enough for vilification.

And before anybody thinks I'm exaggerating too much, remember that one of the more common in-party tactics during primaries is to try to find a picture of the (R) incumbent with either of them. It could be the world's most innocent photo op, virtually accidental (and entirely incidental) but that's a potential issue.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by cartman

Here's how I arrived at the number:

The US GDP last year was ~$18.5 trillion. Making up that number, about 77.5% was for services, 20.8% was manufacturing, and the rest was agriculture. Which means the share of GDP for manufacturing was around $3.8 trillion.

The US imported $2.35 trillion worth of goods last year and exported $1.62 trillion. It isn't an exact number, because it isn't a 1 to 1 relationship, but if you compare imported goods to US manufacturing output minus what we exported, it is a bit more than half.

Okay, that is in value. There are more ways to look at the term "majority." And in fact, value wouldn't be the first way, actual number would.

It's not a big deal to me, just that the original statement could use a lot of clarification if you're going to break it out in an Internetwarz political discussion.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Okay, that is in value. There are more ways to look at the term "majority." And in fact, value wouldn't be the first way, actual number would.

It's not a big deal to me, just that the original statement could use a lot of clarification if you're going to break it out in an Internetwarz political discussion.

Actual number would likely be much higher in favor of foreign, since most manufacturing of consumer items (clothes/shoes/electronics) comes from overseas, where the items the US manufactures are tilted towards high ticket items like planes, automobiles, construction equipment, etc. The anecdotal evidence is the joke about trying to find something at Wal-Mart that wasn't made in China.

I'm trying to see if there is a place to go for the number of items to validate my theory on quantities, but I haven't found one yet.

[corbes]

Question: Does the definition of "great" in Make American Great Again include being the world's most influential superpower?

[larrymcg421]

Whether it's most, half, or less than half, it's pretty clear that the US gets a significant portion of goods from overseas. So not only is "fuck the rest of the world" a selfish and morally reprehensible foreign policy, it's also really damaging to the US's own self interests.

[Ned Doolittle]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We don't support NATO for charity. We do it because it's in both our long and short term interest to do so. Since the creation of NATO Europe has enjoyed a length of relative peace unlike any it history. That benefits us, both in terms of market stability and by not having to spend for war and war's aftermath.

I actually agree with the idea that we shouldn't have so cavalierly included former Soviet client states. Starting a nuclear war over Estonia, for example, really is stupid. But, alliances don't work if one partner refuses to honor the terms, and breaking NATO would put every other alliance at risk.

The Russians would love this, and are already probably making plans to test the limits of a Trump admin. We've forgotten not only the benefits of a stable Europe, but also the dangers of Russian aggression.

Ask the original America Firsters, putting America first can quickly lead to putting Americans into a European war.

And that differs from the Middle Eastern war how?

[corbes]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So basically Trump is Neville Chamberlain.

I think the Neville Chamberlain finger is more accurately pointed in the direction of Reince Preibus and the others from the trump-appeasement wing of the party.

[ISiddiqui]

Wait, are we really talking trash about NATO after the US invokes article 51 after 9/11 and every NATO country provided aid in the attack against Afghanistan? To now back away when others are at risk is really shitty. What, a we got ours so screw you attitude to our allies? That will really help us in making alliances in that future...

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[mckerney]

If anyone is interested in reading Trump's speech ahead of time.

Full text: Donald Trump 2016 RNC draft speech transcript - POLITICO

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by 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.

No one attacks America because we have an enormous strategic advantage because of Europe. If a country like Russia started a war, we could launch attacks through Europe. We could utilize those countries for resources.

Do you realize this is why we had it out with Cuba half a century ago? It would have been a huge military advantage for the Soviets to be able to setup camp 90 miles off the coast of our country. Just as it would be for potential enemies to form strategic alliances with Canada.

Also most of our defense budget isn't part of direct NATO spending. We choose to spend that kind of money to be a "global superpower". If Trump wants to cut our defense budget I can understand that. But his stance has been wanting to build a 2,000 mile wall along the Mexico border and send more ground troops into Iraq and Syria. Proposals that don't exactly scream "cutting of the defense budget". So what is it?

My guess is Trump and most of his supporters don't know what NATO is outside of the first lines of the Wikipedia entry.

[JPhillips]

I think given the praise for Putin, the ties of the campaign manager, the quiet changes to the platform, and now the proposed abandonment of NATO, we have to entertain the very real possibility that Trump is more ideologically aligned to Russia than western Europe.

[EagleFan]

Can this guy shut up? Enough of the yelling.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think given the praise for Putin, the ties of the campaign manager, the quiet changes to the platform, and now the proposed abandonment of NATO, we have to entertain the very real possibility that Trump is more ideologically aligned to Russia than western Europe.

He also praised Erdogan's handling of the coup. Which shows his lack of knowledge of foreign policy when his campaign has been attacking Islam and Sharia Law from the start.

[Thomkal]

So I was very interested to hear that one of the speakers tonight is going to be Peter Thiel, openly gay co-founder of Pay Pal and a Republican. He's apparantly going to take the RNC to task for their anti-gay plank in the platform and stance over the years towards gays. Be interested to see how the crowd reacts, especially if he comes right after Jerry Falwell Jr.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...an-convention/

[RainMaker]

For everyone who crapped on the RNC for having Scott Baio speak, the DNC has a bunch of actors doing the same at their convention. I'm guessing the same people won't be making fun of that.

[digamma]

Would totally vote for the guy Ivanka is describing.

[Jas_lov]

Trump isn't very good at reading from the teleprompter.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by digamma

Would totally vote for the guy Ivanka is describing.

Would totally vote for Ivanka.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

For everyone who crapped on the RNC for having Scott Baio speak, the DNC has a bunch of actors doing the same at their convention. I'm guessing the same people won't be making fun of that.

C'mon, though, he's not even a respected actor. Charles in Charge, and Chachi and ????

[korme]

why does trump hate america

[RainMaker]

The girl from Neighbors 2 that much better?