US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Jason: I've been reading your posts for 10 years. I can't think of a time where you called out a republican on foreign policy.

Uhhhhhh...

You've been reading my posts and don't know I'm a staunch non-interventionists, and that my biggest criticism of Obama's foreign policy is that he's continuing Bush's foreign policy?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Jason: I've been reading your posts for 10 years. I can't think of a time where you called out a republican on foreign policy.

Uhhhhhh...

You've been reading my posts and don't know I'm a staunch non-interventionists, and that my biggest criticism of Obama's foreign policy is that he's continuing Bush's foreign policy?

Nuts. Bush's foreign policy was to nation build. He believed that the US can invade a country in the ME, occupy it, defend it, give it trillions in aid, and it will transform into a post WW2 Japan and Germany. All of the republicans running today (except for Paul) believe the same. Our military will be very busy if a republican gets elected next year. Obama is a minimalist. He's not anti invasion, but doesn't want to occupy. He wants to force our "allies" to learn to fight for themselves. He states that the US will leave by x date in order to motivate the moderates to fight. Bush's policy was an absolute failure. For example: the US trained the Mosel army in Iraq for 7 years. Their troops received the best training possible, our best military hardware, and billions and billions of dollars. This great army of 200,000 troops was defeated by 335 ISIL troops.

It's yet to be seen if Obama's policy is working. But we do see moderate Arab armies fighting back. They retook Mosel with zero American ground forces. We are drawing down our troops and pulling out. The Nanny state neo-cons want the opposite.

 

[angelo]

All candidates should do a study of Islam before and after their nomination. I mean the teachings of their pedo prophet and also the tribal mentality of many Arab nations. This may assure we don't get drawn in to their squabbles.
O

 

[Ford]

Uhhhhhh...

You've been reading my posts and don't know I'm a staunch non-interventionists, and that my biggest criticism of Obama's foreign policy is that he's continuing Bush's foreign policy?

Nuts. Bush's foreign policy was to nation build. He believed that the US can invade a country in the ME, occupy it, defend it, give it trillions in aid, and it will transform into a post WW2 Japan and Germany.

On that point I'm gonna have to disagree with you. Bush's belief was that the US could invade a country in the Middle East, wave flags, topple a statue or two, and bug out, as the country in question would be "Shock and Awed" into realizing that a western style democratic republic was what they'd been missing all along. Then within a short time (months or perhaps even weeks later) after that country took to democracy like a duck to water, other nations in the region would clamor for their own country to become western style democracies, too.


It seems absurd as I type it out, but that was actually the policy.


That is, until the Iraqis took their new-found "freedom" and decided that while democracy might be nice, a sectarian civil war would be way cooler.

 

[Keith&Co.]

When leftists aren't defending homosexuality, they are accusing conservatives and Christians of being homosexual.
There are many, many other extant hypocrisies practiced by the left,

OH! Now i get it. I was wondering where 'hypocrisy' comes in. You list two actions, defending homosexuality and diagnosing it. Neither seems to me to be a hypocritical action in relation to the other.
But i realize that when you use certain terms, like atheist, leftist or homosexual, you're intending derision.

So trying to be nice about homosexuals AND tossing the label around seem, to you, to be us trying to be supportive and then trying to be hurtful. Hmmm.






That's so gay....

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Uhhhhhh...

You've been reading my posts and don't know I'm a staunch non-interventionists, and that my biggest criticism of Obama's foreign policy is that he's continuing Bush's foreign policy?

Nuts. Bush's foreign policy was to nation build. He believed that the US can invade a country in the ME, occupy it, defend it, give it trillions in aid, and it will transform into a post WW2 Japan and Germany. All of the republicans running today (except for Paul) believe the same. Our military will be very busy if a republican gets elected next year. Obama is a minimalist. He's not anti invasion, but doesn't want to occupy. He wants to force our "allies" to learn to fight for themselves. He states that the US will leave by x date in order to motivate the moderates to fight. Bush's policy was an absolute failure. For example: the US trained the Mosel army in Iraq for 7 years. Their troops received the best training possible, our best military hardware, and billions and billions of dollars. This great army of 200,000 troops was defeated by 335 ISIL troops.

It's yet to be seen if Obama's policy is working. But we do see moderate Arab armies fighting back. They retook Mosel with zero American ground forces. We are drawing down our troops and pulling out. The Nanny state neo-cons want the opposite.

Uh, yeah, whatever.

Go back to the archives, and see that I've been against the war since the beginning. Then look at about 2008 and see that one of the things that most attracted me to Ron Paul was that he was against the war and wanted to bring the troops home. See me being slightly optimistic about Obama because he fooled EVEN ME about how he wasn't as bad as Bush Jr. Make excuses for Obama (Oh but it's not a real war and he's not a real Scotsman) but don't accuse me of supporting Bush's wars simply because I oppose Obama's wars too.

At least my position on the use of the military is the same before AND after January 20th, 2009. Apparently yours changed on that day. Gee. what else changed on that day that could turn you from an opponent of war to a supporter of war.

 

[angelo]

I have been hearing some bad things about Clinton lately, about her cover up about the Benghazi affair. I think if that's true she's not suited to the top job.

She's pretty much a diehard dupe of Israel.

WTF has Israel got to do with anything!! Are you implying she's in Israel's pocket?

 

[lpetrich]

NYT: Koch Brothers Say 2016 GOP Nominee Should Be Scott Walker

Billionaire conservative donors Charles G. and David H. Koch signaled Monday that they want Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) to get the 2016 GOP nomination for president and could give money directly to him to get him there.

"We will support whoever the candidate is," David Koch said to donors at a fundraising event hosted by the New York State Republican Party on Monday, according to The New York Times. "But it should be Scott Walker."

I'd seen it reported earlier, but I wanted to see it in some mainstream news source.

 

[Sarpedon]

And Adelson backs Rubio.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And Adelson backs Rubio.

Did Rubio say he'll put a space station on the Moon?

Rubio very well may end up being the dark horse in this. He is trying desperately to separate himself from the other Tea Party guys, which has put him a little bit to the left of them.

What I don't get about Adelson is that Rubio is a newcomer. He isn't established, yet billionaires seem content putting huge amounts of cash on them like they were horses in a race.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What I don't get about Adelson is that Rubio is a newcomer. He isn't established, yet billionaires seem content putting huge amounts of cash on them like they were horses in a race.

It's an investment. Even if a candidate doesn't win, the fact that he was a Presidential contender makes him an influential member of the party with a strong voice about how many more tax breaks billionaires need.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Nuts. Bush's foreign policy was to nation build. He believed that the US can invade a country in the ME, occupy it, defend it, give it trillions in aid, and it will transform into a post WW2 Japan and Germany. All of the republicans running today (except for Paul) believe the same. Our military will be very busy if a republican gets elected next year. Obama is a minimalist. He's not anti invasion, but doesn't want to occupy. He wants to force our "allies" to learn to fight for themselves. He states that the US will leave by x date in order to motivate the moderates to fight. Bush's policy was an absolute failure. For example: the US trained the Mosel army in Iraq for 7 years. Their troops received the best training possible, our best military hardware, and billions and billions of dollars. This great army of 200,000 troops was defeated by 335 ISIL troops.

It's yet to be seen if Obama's policy is working. But we do see moderate Arab armies fighting back. They retook Mosel with zero American ground forces. We are drawing down our troops and pulling out. The Nanny state neo-cons want the opposite.

Uh, yeah, whatever.

Go back to the archives, and see that I've been against the war since the beginning. Then look at about 2008 and see that one of the things that most attracted me to Ron Paul was that he was against the war and wanted to bring the troops home. See me being slightly optimistic about Obama because he fooled EVEN ME about how he wasn't as bad as Bush Jr. Make excuses for Obama (Oh but it's not a real war and he's not a real Scotsman) but don't accuse me of supporting Bush's wars simply because I oppose Obama's wars too.

At least my position on the use of the military is the same before AND after January 20th, 2009. Apparently yours changed on that day. Gee. what else changed on that day that could turn you from an opponent of war to a supporter of war.

I was always against the US invasion of Iraq. I think that we should quit meddling in the ME and completely avoid their civil war. IMO, the democrats will be far far less invasive than the republicans. Again, all the republicans (save for Paul who is becoming more militaristic by the day) favor sending US troops directly into the ME.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I like how Obama has allegedly involved the US in a lot more wars than W did. I mean, sure, there haven't been any occupations or invasions or overthrowing of governments (Libya excepted and that was a France operation with a little US military help, and maybe a bit too much CIA help).

10,000 dead/maimed soldiers under W. How many under Obama? What in the heck does war mean again?

 

[Bronzeage]

[

When leftists aren't defending homosexuality, they are accusing conservatives and Christians of being homosexual.
...

It's strange you put it that way. I post on another forum which has a decidedly different cast than TFT. I say that with the knowledge that everyone here could also be there, under a different user name.

The most conservative posters on this particular forum have user names which contain phrases such as "M4M" (man for man), "CD" (cross dresser), and "petcock" (no translation needed).

They each have all the required credits for bashing Obama, global climate change, and Hillary, so there is little doubt about their politics or sexual preferences.

One of my best friends is gay(dead butch, you'd never know unless he told you), but has been bitching about Hillary Clinton since she was a measly first lady. He was the first person I heard utter the catch phrase, "She scares me." That was many years ago, and since then, it's become a common thing.

 

[Sarpedon]

What I don't get about Adelson is that Rubio is a newcomer. He isn't established, yet billionaires seem content putting huge amounts of cash on them like they were horses in a race.

I think a lot of these guys operate on whom they like personally. Some, like the Kochs, seem to be a bit more strategic, but these big wallets also mean big egos, and big egos often mean going with their gut rather than what some numbers nerd says.

Also, fivethirtyeight.com seems to think Rubio is a very strong candidate for a variety of reasons, namely he is well liked accross the GOP spectrum, if not always (or even often) the first choice. People like Bush and Christie and Paul and Cruz have their fanatical supporters, but also their fanatical enemies. Rubio doesn't seem to have any enemies. (except facts, consistency and dry throat)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What I don't get about Adelson is that Rubio is a newcomer. He isn't established, yet billionaires seem content putting huge amounts of cash on them like they were horses in a race.

I think a lot of these guys operate on whom they like personally. Some, like the Kochs, seem to be a bit more strategic, but these big wallets also mean big egos, and big egos often mean going with their gut rather than what some numbers nerd says.

Also, fivethirtyeight.com seems to think Rubio is a very strong candidate for a variety of reasons, namely he is well liked accross the GOP spectrum, if not always (or even often) the first choice. People like Bush and Christie and Paul and Cruz have their fanatical supporters, but also their fanatical enemies. Rubio doesn't seem to have any enemies. (except facts, consistency and dry throat)

Rubio stopped talking and towing the Tea Party line. His advisors realized that Cruz had perfected the Nutball Candidate, so they needed another direction, so sensible far-right wing candidate who pretends to be moderate, but probably is more moderate than he lets on but is running for nomination of party that makes Orrin Hatch look moderate, so what do we get if he is elected?

 

[lpetrich]

Joel McNally: Scott Walker's 'breathtaking' plunge in approval : Ct

Walker’s disappearance from his state to campaign almost full-time for the Republican presidential nomination seems to be taking an enormous toll on his political popularity at home even as Walker brags to Republicans elsewhere about winning in a blue state.

Scott Walker Is Toast—The Crazy Move that Cost Him the Kochs and Probably the Nomination | Alternet

It’s hard not to fall down laughing (or lose your lunch) over the most notorious union buster in America waxing on about protecting American jobs, but he’s the last person to understand the irony of his comments. But by taking a position against legal immigration, he’s just placed himself to the right of Ted Cruz on this issue. He’s out in Ben Carson land. Not to mention that he’s obliterated the last tattered shreds of a conservative argument to appeal to Hispanic and other ethnic groups: the idea that illegal immigration is unfair to legal immigrants who’ve been “waiting in line” to come to this country. Walker wants to close down the line altogether. Only the most hardcore neo-Confederates like Sessions want to go that far.

That's his mess to clean up, and I'll enjoy every bit of it. Let's see whether the Koch brothers continue to like him and finance his career.

 

[Sarpedon]

Yeah, remember, the super rich americans are that way because they are smarter than everyone else, and so we should do whatever they say! So if the Koch brothers back Walker, he must obviously be the best candidate. And if Adelson backs Rubio, he must be the best candidate too. After all, how can a billionaire be wrong?

 

[fromderinside]

Texans are toast. Senators are toast. Pennsylvanians are toast. Alaskans are toast. Louisianans are toast. Seems like its down to Rubio and Bush from Florida and to Christi from New Jersey for republicans. Boring.

Get ready for these people to convert to nascent birthers and bible pounders. so its probably over forthe Republicans.

Now to get a decent candidate from the Democrats. Any news on that time machine.

 

[Sarpedon]

Christie is only in the running in his own mind.