|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 08 2016 02:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 02:13 Mohdoo wrote:
...why is it good for Trump for nieto to get in trouble for meeting with trump? It's not the fact that Nieto is in trouble that benefits Trump. What matters is why Nieto is in trouble. He's in trouble because he has single-handedly given Trump an image of legitimacy, credibility, and seriousness as a potential head of state. As far as Mexicans are concerned, Nieto has laid down the first brick in Trump's wall.
He has? All I saw was two dudes shake hands on a stage, then go home and yell that the other was a liar. While that doesn't make Nieto look good, I don't see how it legitimizes Trump. No statesmanship was displayed on either side.
|
On September 08 2016 02:22 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 02:18 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2016 02:13 Mohdoo wrote:
...why is it good for Trump for nieto to get in trouble for meeting with trump? It's not the fact that Nieto is in trouble that benefits Trump. What matters is why Nieto is in trouble. He's in trouble because he has single-handedly given Trump an image of legitimacy, credibility, and seriousness as a potential head of state. As far as Mexicans are concerned, Nieto has laid down the first brick in Trump's wall. He has? All I saw was two dudes shake hands on a stage, then go home and yell that the other was a liar. While that doesn't make Nieto look good, I don't see how it legitimizes Trump. No statesmanship was displayed on either side.
It is statesman like if you set the bar so low that not calling someone names is statesman like.
|
There's nothing unambiguously correct about Trump getting a 'huge boost' from the visit, his climb in the polls started well before that and slowed down or even decreased afterwards. The visit was on 31 Aug, here's the change.
Yougov 23 Aug Clinton +3
Yougov 06 Sep Clinton +2
LA Times 30 Aug Trump +3
LA Times 07 Sep Tie
Reuters 30 Aug Trump +2
Reuters 05 Sep Clinton +2
NBC 28 Aug Clinton +6
NBC 04 Sep Clinton +6
CVoter 24 Aug Trump +1
CVoter 04 Sep Clinton +2
CNN 31 Jul Clinton +9 (this was before Trump's rise, I don't see one inbetween)
CNN 04 Sep Trump +1 (also changed methodology)
Morning Consult 26 Aug Clinton +3
Morning Consult 02 Sep Clinton +2
So I really don't know what the hell you're talking about, these are pretty much all the before and afters. We'll have to wait more for Fox, IBD and others that don't have a poll from after the visit yet.
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/peter-thiel-trump-has-taught-us-this-years-most-important-political-lesson/2016/09/06/84df8182-738c-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html
The establishment doesn’t want to admit it, but Trump’s heretical denial of Republican dogma about government incapacity is exactly what we need to move the party — and the country — in a new direction. For the Republican Party to be a credible alternative to the Democrats’ enabling, it must stand for effective government, not for giving up on government.
I believe that effective government will require less bureaucracy and less rulemaking; we may need to have fewer public servants, and we might need to pay some of them more. At a minimum, we should recognize that success cannot be reduced to the overall size of the budget: Spending money and solving problems are not the same thing.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/02/sen-rand-paul-president-obama-what-on-gods-green-earth-is-our-policy-in-syria.html
This is an abysmal failure of the foreign policy establishment on both sides of the aisle, with the Obama administration deserving much of the current blame.
From the beginning of the Syrian civil war, this has been the problem. The Obama administration drew red lines that made no sense. It armed opposition it did not know well or understand.
Worse yet, the opposition to Bashar al-Assad has never been unified, and their hatred for each other typically trumps their desire to attack ISIS.
In fact, for many of the so called moderate Syrian rebels, ISIS and Al Qaeda are still viewed as allies against Assad.
Some rebel groups even acknowledge publicly that if and when Assad is defeated, their next target will be Israel -- not ISIS. And yet, despite this precarious state, Obama sends a steady drip of U.S. soldiers, a dozen at a time, into the cauldron of chaos.
So far in this war we have funneled weapons to terrorists, armed multiple sides and generally acted as if we don’t have a clue what to do in the region -- and we’ve done it all unconstitutionally, with the president far exceeding his authority.
|
I can see XDaunt being correct in the sense that the average American voter probably didn't pay attention to how things played out in Mexico after, IE how Nieto slagged him off after.
If you know the full context then Trump looks like a toy that was played with to grand stand against . If you only saw the press conference then tuned the rest out you can say that Trump "looked good" doing political things with another head of state.
|
United States43259 Posts
Out of curiousity, what does Fox News think Obama should do about the ongoing melee between ISIS, Assad, Hezbollah, Iran, Russia, Al Qaeda and the PKK? Get in the middle of it? Send cheerleaders? Nuke the region?
|
On September 08 2016 02:38 KwarK wrote:
Out of curiousity, what does Fox News think Obama should do about the ongoing melee between ISIS, Assad, Hezbollah, Iran, Russia, Al Qaeda and the PKK? Get in the middle of it? Send cheerleaders? Nuke the region?
It is the current foreign policy blame game. The issue is so huge and fraught with difficulty that every nation on the planet is sitting it out. That there is no way to stop the violence and struggle created by the power vacuumed of post war Iraq. And that the tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia are escalating.
So Fox news is blaming Obama for not having a clearer plan, even those most experts say there is no solution at this time and these conflicts needs to play out in some way. Of course if he had proposed a different plan, they would say it was ineffective.
|
On September 08 2016 02:36 Slaughter wrote:
I can see XDaunt being correct in the sense that the average American voter probably didn't pay attention to how things played out in Mexico after, IE how Nieto slagged him off after.
If you know the full context then Trump looks like a toy that was played with to grand stand against . If you only saw the press conference then tuned the rest out you can say that Trump "looked good" doing political things with another head of state.
An 8 year old can stand on a stage, read off a card and smile/wave.
The fact that Trump needed to prove he can not be a total ass for 3 minutes speaks much louder.
|
On September 08 2016 02:38 KwarK wrote:
Out of curiousity, what does Fox News think Obama should do about the ongoing melee between ISIS, Assad, Hezbollah, Iran, Russia, Al Qaeda and the PKK? Get in the middle of it? Send cheerleaders? Nuke the region?
They think he should do the opposite.
|
So here is the list of US Military proposals that Trump released today:
PROPOSAL: Immediately after taking office, Mr. Trump will ask the generals to present a plan within 30 days to defeat and destroy ISIS.
PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will ask Congress to fully eliminate the defense sequester and will submit a new budget to rebuild our military as soon as he assumes office.
PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will build an active Army of around 540,000, as the Army’s chief of staff has said he needs.
PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will build a Marine Corps based on 36 battalions, which the Heritage Foundation notes is the minimum needed to deal with major contingencies.
PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will build a Navy approaching 350 surface ships and submarines, as recommended by the bipartisan National Defense Panel.
PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will build an Air Force of at least 1,200 fighter aircraft, which the Heritage Foundation has shown to be needed to execute current missions.
PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will seek to develop a state of the art missile defense system.
PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will modernize our nation’s naval cruisers to provide Ballistic Missile Defense capabilities.
PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will enforce all classification rules, and enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information.
PROPOSAL: One of Mr. Trump’s first commands after taking office will be asking the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and all relevant federal departments, to conduct a thorough review of United States cyber defenses and identify all vulnerabilities – in our power grid, our communications systems, and all vital infrastructure.
|
So, can we now all agree that Trump literally has no idea how the government and military interact?
|
He should throw on "Improve archaic nuclear silos". We have sacked at maintaining our nukes.
|
On September 08 2016 02:38 KwarK wrote:
Out of curiousity, what does Fox News think Obama should do about the ongoing melee between ISIS, Assad, Hezbollah, Iran, Russia, Al Qaeda and the PKK? Get in the middle of it? Send cheerleaders? Nuke the region?
Obviously his red line exacerbated all of that. And he should have armed moderate rebels earlier in order to properly control the situation. On the other hand, he should not have armed rebels because they are allied with terrorists, and arms will get into the hands of terrorists. He should have just launched some cruise missiles at Assad to stick to his red line; the situation in Syria would look different now. Assad would be considering resigning and make peace, and Putin would have said "okay I back down".
|
On September 08 2016 02:47 Slaughter wrote:
He should throw on "Improve archaic nuclear silos". We have sacked at maintaining our nukes.
The name of the game these days for land-based nukes is mobile launch platforms. Which the US has mostly snubbed in favor of ballistic submarines.
|
I believe a retired General charitably referred to Trumps 30 Day ISIS plan as “sophomoric”. And that was the nice stuff I heard in response.
|
On September 08 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:So here is the list of US Military proposals that Trump released today: Show nested quote +PROPOSAL: Immediately after taking office, Mr. Trump will ask the generals to present a plan within 30 days to defeat and destroy ISIS.
PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will ask Congress to fully eliminate the defense sequester and will submit a new budget to rebuild our military as soon as he assumes office.
PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will build an active Army of around 540,000, as the Army’s chief of staff has said he needs.
PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will build a Marine Corps based on 36 battalions, which the Heritage Foundation notes is the minimum needed to deal with major contingencies.
PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will build a Navy approaching 350 surface ships and submarines, as recommended by the bipartisan National Defense Panel.
PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will build an Air Force of at least 1,200 fighter aircraft, which the Heritage Foundation has shown to be needed to execute current missions.
PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will seek to develop a state of the art missile defense system.
PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will modernize our nation’s naval cruisers to provide Ballistic Missile Defense capabilities.
PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will enforce all classification rules, and enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information.
PROPOSAL: One of Mr. Trump’s first commands after taking office will be asking the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and all relevant federal departments, to conduct a thorough review of United States cyber defenses and identify all vulnerabilities – in our power grid, our communications systems, and all vital infrastructure.
Sounds awesome. I thoroughly agree with all the points, just a couple of minor comments for in the margin:
I presume Mr. Trump will be paying for this himself? Just because it sounds quite expensive, and I also heard Mr. Trump talk about massive tax cuts.
I heartily applaud proposal number 1, however I do have some doubts about whether any such plan will be executed, as it will undoubtedly involve boots, ground, and a prolonged occupation of the area (well, that, or nukes). But he should absolutely ask his commanders. That's so clever! I bet you Obama never thought of that.
|
You guys do understand that Point Number 1 doesn't mean that the military has to present a plan that destroys ISIS in 30 days of combat, right? He said he wants to see a plan to destroy ISIS 30 days after he takes office.
|
On September 08 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:So here is the list of US Military proposals that Trump released today: Show nested quote +PROPOSAL: Immediately after taking office, Mr. Trump will ask the generals to present a plan within 30 days to defeat and destroy ISIS.
PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will ask Congress to fully eliminate the defense sequester and will submit a new budget to rebuild our military as soon as he assumes office.
PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will build an active Army of around 540,000, as the Army’s chief of staff has said he needs.
PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will build a Marine Corps based on 36 battalions, which the Heritage Foundation notes is the minimum needed to deal with major contingencies.
PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will build a Navy approaching 350 surface ships and submarines, as recommended by the bipartisan National Defense Panel.
PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will build an Air Force of at least 1,200 fighter aircraft, which the Heritage Foundation has shown to be needed to execute current missions.
PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will seek to develop a state of the art missile defense system.
PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will modernize our nation’s naval cruisers to provide Ballistic Missile Defense capabilities.
PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump will enforce all classification rules, and enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information.
PROPOSAL: One of Mr. Trump’s first commands after taking office will be asking the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and all relevant federal departments, to conduct a thorough review of United States cyber defenses and identify all vulnerabilities – in our power grid, our communications systems, and all vital infrastructure.
The final point is probably his only good one.
I love the 'subtle' jab at Emailghazi in there.
Destroy ISIS just shows he is utterly clueless. You cannot destroy a terrorist organization with an army. You just drive them underground and out of sight. The current situation in the middle east is perfect for the US. Its a giant meatgrinder for all their enemies to pump resources and manpower into for no gain.
And lol at the US army needs more money. Money for what? Isn't he going to retreat the army back to US soil out of foreign basis and re-evaluation defensive commitments? What do you need a massive army for if your no longer going to play world police.
|
Now that we're on the topic, how do we reconcile point number 1 with Trump being a "pacifist"?
|
On September 08 2016 00:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 00:19 a_flayer wrote:On September 08 2016 00:15 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2016 00:12 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2016 00:07 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2016 23:29 xDaunt wrote:
It's starting to look like obstruction of justice. And yet we know* that Clinton used other people to handle the tagging of documents. Can you unequivocally say that she did not write the email contents (and thus signed it with her name) and then had one of the people working for her tag it before it got send? *from the FBI disposition. Of course not, which is why I didn't say that it unequivocally was obstruction of justice. aka this is non-news. Its a document that the FBI saw during their investigation and that is easily explained. It doesn't look like obstruction of justice at all. Isn't there also the better safe than sorry approach with regards to claiming that you know something. A "C" could mean a lot of things, and if you were to claim it meant "Clinton" because you assumed it would, and then it turns out to be something else, you'd be wrong which is of course also a terrible thing in the eye of the public. How dare politicians be wrong or change their minds when presented with new evidence! It was a deposition, so the standard response if you do no remember is “I don’t recall.” If she didn’t know what the “C” meant, she would only say that and not speculate. Speculating what she believed it would mean nearly four years later wouldn’t be helpful to her, wouldn’t reflect what she thought at the time and would imply she was aware of the symbol and thought about it. From the deposition, she received almost all her classified documents in person. The few that were sent via email with the “C” marking were either mislabeled or shouldn’t have been sent in that manner by the sender.
You know she did speculate what it meant though right?
“When asked what the parenthetical ‘C’ meant before a paragraph within the captioned email, [Clinton] stated she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order,” read the FBI’s notes from the interview.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
