I wash my hands of the GOP

[Correll]

HRC will not be abandoned by her Party members. Drumpf will.

As bad as I hate to say it, I believe you may be right. There will be 30% of the party who will stay at home if Trump wins the nomination, and 30% will stay home if Cruz wins.... and we can't defeat HRC that way.

Maybe the Party Leadership shouldn't have joined in the LEft's campaign to marginalize their own front runner, and much of their base.

That's the choice that lead to this level of division.

------------------------------------------------ i love the Division . I can't imagine calling a lefty an Ally Correl .

I don't love it. The leadership should not be doing this.

 

[pismoe]

HRC will not be abandoned by her Party members. Drumpf will.

As bad as I hate to say it, I believe you may be right. There will be 30% of the party who will stay at home if Trump wins the nomination, and 30% will stay home if Cruz wins.... and we can't defeat HRC that way.

Maybe the Party Leadership shouldn't have joined in the LEft's campaign to marginalize their own front runner, and much of their base.

That's the choice that lead to this level of division.

------------------------------------------------ i love the Division . I can't imagine calling a lefty an Ally Correl .

I don't love it. The leadership should not be doing this.

------------------------------- their action point right back at them as being the enemy . Glad to see it though as i can't abide thinking highly of the 'gop' Correl .

 

[MarcATL]

And yet, exit polling has shown he is winning the votes of most self identified conservatives voting in the Republican primaries, so it would sound to me like he is very much representative of conservatives.

Well that's because Trump "self-identifies" as a Conservative! DUH!

What you label yourself as has NOTHING to do with what you ARE!

But if everyone else that is self-identifying as you are, are all for you, doesn't that make them conservative, therefore you conservative?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Words do not define reality.

They just describe it.

Trump's platform is more nationalistic than it is conservative.

And I say that as a conservative.

Here's the thing about that...others are saying words as conservatives too. Who's right? Who's wrong?

The rich get richer no matter which party's in charge. Meanwhile, the worst economic disasters over that time came from the hands of the GOP.

------------------------------------------------ what economic disasters Faun ?? Heck , I am older , not rich , I am blue collar and I survived all your claimed economic disasters just fine . What disasters do you speak of . Heck , there are ups and downs In the economy but I as an average guy have never been too affected . Besides that a country like the USA should be more substantial than just constant easy living Faun .

I guess you missed the Great Depression and the Great Recession.

-----------------------------------great depression was before my time but my Mother and her 10 brothers and sisters survived although they were all very very poor . Recessions , I've been working since I first had kids in 1970 and recessions never did anything with us except maybe I didn't buy a new motorcycle or other TOY. I was happy that we always ate and always had a roof over our heads . My opinion is that most Americans are too fat and happy or soft and a little bit of adversity or a smaller paycheck gets them to whining Faun .

Your personal experiences are irrelevant. The country went through both economic disasters even if you weren't alive for one or not severely affected by the other. Both at the hands of the GOP.

--------------------------------------------- unprepared whiners is what they were Faun !!

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

Well that's because Trump "self-identifies" as a Conservative! DUH!

What you label yourself as has NOTHING to do with what you ARE!

But if everyone else that is self-identifying as you are, are all for you, doesn't that make them conservative, therefore you conservative?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Words do not define reality.

They just describe it.

Trump's platform is more nationalistic than it is conservative.

And I say that as a conservative.

Trump’s platform is designed to do one thing; validate the hate that his supporters have for people not like them (protestant white males)?

Hate Catholics? He mocks the religion.
Hate women? He calls them names.
Hate Mexicans? He calls them names.
Don’t like having to park away from the door at Wal*Mart, he makes fun of the handicapped.
Like making fun of fat people? He’s got you there too.
Enjoy making up childish nicknames for your opponents? Donald is your man.

Want well-thought out governmental policies? Drumpf is woefully ill-equipped. But it doesn’t matter; he’s funny.

Substitute any other candidates name from the past and you have the standard talking points of the liberals during the election. Same shit different election.

Their candidate is corrupt as hell. So they must attack the other side and keep the ball out of their court. The NEVER HILLARY MOVEMENT is every bit as big as NEVER TRUMP..................Even their normal voters are crossing over because they can't stand the Hildabeast..........

On the other side of the coin, the establishment voters who want a rigged convention are stating they'll never vote for Trump..............Both parties in ashes......which side will have the most defectors.............that will decide the election.

Okay, lets unpack your post.

On the GOP side, we have seen the last two POTUS nominees come out against this year’s nominee. On the DNC side, the last two nominees are pretty much on record stating they will support HRC.

On the GOP side, the vanquished opponents have, with the exception of a few, dismissed the nominee. The vanquished opponents have largely been silent or supportive of the nominee.

On the GOP side, members of their own party (on this board) have lampooned the nominee of their party as a complete dud. And while I’m sure that has happened on the DNC side as well, many (if not most) are going to vote for HRC.

You are either lying to yourself or are woefully mis informed.

It's lying.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

HRC will not be abandoned by her Party members. Drumpf will.

As bad as I hate to say it, I believe you may be right. There will be 30% of the party who will stay at home if Trump wins the nomination, and 30% will stay home if Cruz wins.... and we can't defeat HRC that way.

-------------------------------------------- and then you moderate rinos that support the gop republican rinos get exactly what you deserve Boss .

Well... I am NOT a moderate or a rino. I am a constitutional conservative and have been for 40 years.

and WHO is this WE that loses to 'hrc' ?? I support Trump or Cruz and that's it . I could not care less if the 'gop' wins . In fact if they were to run a jebito bush , a roobio or Kasich I will vote for the 'hrc' Boss .

I don't care about the "GOP" either... but if we're all going to get mad at the GOP, it's not likely we're going to vote for the GOP candidate for president, is it? Just seems to be common fucking goat sense to me.

The thing that blows my mind is, you and I are on the SAME TEAM! Our principles and interests line up exactly! You say you will vote for Trump or Cruz, and I probably will too! You say you will vote for HRC if the GOP somehow installs someone else... I don't know that I could ever vote for HRC but I would probably stay home.

I am making an objective observation based on what I've seen and heard... mostly here at USMB. Trump vs. Cruz has gotten so hostile and nasty that the two factions are in danger of destroying any chance the GOP has in November. I wish it wasn't like that, but that's how I see it.

I blame this on TRUMP because, out of the gate, Ted Cruz met with Trump and they seemed to both be on the same page. Neither was attacking the other, they both seemed to align politically with their message... everything was looking like it could be the making of an unbeatable ticket. Then Trump wen't nasty. After dispatching Carson, he started in on Cruz... all the way down to the personal attacks on his family.

There was no need for that. Trump was leading in the polls, had a clear path to win the nomination... had he stayed clean and debated Cruz on substance and eventually went on to win... no one supporting Cruz would have any problem supporting Trump. But "Mr. Deal Maker" ...."Mr. I can work with anybody" ...didn't take the high road... he, with his supporters joining in, trashed and denigrated and smeared Ted Cruz up one side and down the other. Now you have the situation where Cruz supporters aren't going to support Trump and Trump supporters aren't going to support Cruz. And the Liberal Democrat base are absolutely GIDDY about this!

No, you have it all wrong. Cruz brought it on himself when he decided to stab Carson in the back by feeding and spreading false information about him through the media.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Correll]

And yet, exit polling has shown he is winning the votes of most self identified conservatives voting in the Republican primaries, so it would sound to me like he is very much representative of conservatives.

Well that's because Trump "self-identifies" as a Conservative! DUH!

What you label yourself as has NOTHING to do with what you ARE!

But if everyone else that is self-identifying as you are, are all for you, doesn't that make them conservative, therefore you conservative?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Words do not define reality.

They just describe it.

Trump's platform is more nationalistic than it is conservative.

And I say that as a conservative.

Here's the thing about that...others are saying words as conservatives too. Who's right? Who's wrong?

RIght and wrong are not defined by popularity.

Trump's platform is mostly PRAGMATIC with little if any consideration of Ideology.

It appears to be driven solely by what is in the best interests of the American Middle Class, and "coincidentall"y, the vast majority of the American voters.


That is nationalism and populism.

That conservatives who are attracted to that message of nationalism, and populism see it a conservative is just an irrational perception error where people want to believe that people they like are like them.

I saw it all the time when I was in a medical field. My patients would project their beliefs on me in order to comfort themselves that I was part of their group during their treatment.

I had a friend whom a female co-worker he got along with well at work, misjudged his age by over 15 years.

And it's not like he's in such great shape that that was a reasonable mistake.


The flip side of this is that liberals see it as conservative because they want to believe someone they DISLIKE is NOT part of their group or has any shared ground.

 

[Toro]

You’re the one talking about WWIII and you’re calling someone else a “drama queen”!!!!
Thanks for yet another reason to laugh at you.

The issue we are discussing is whether or not to have a policy of hostility towards Russia, a large nation with a large nuclear stockpile.

Considering a very real possible outcome of such a policy, ie WWIII, is not "drama" but mature and responsible thinking.


IN the context of our having a disagreement, your overblown rhetoric about how stupid i "must" be based solely on me having a different opinion than you, yes is you being a drama queen.

And narrow minded.

My point stands, you have not done anything to challenge it, other than call me names.

Our political class has been stuck in COld War thinking and knee jerk hostility towards Russia.

Trump would be a serious change from that outdated thinking.


A change for the good.

Lets take steps to avoid WWIII.

Vote Trump.

You need a whole team of psychologists don't you boy?

And your response to my serious and honest post, was NOTHING but the Logical Fallacy of Ad hominem.


One of the primary propaganda techniques of the left.




As nothing in your post challenged or even addressed anything in my post, I will repost it for you and ask you to try again, only this time with a real answer, if you dare.


The issue we are discussing is whether or not to have a policy of hostility towards Russia, a large nation with a large nuclear stockpile.

Considering a very real possible outcome of such a policy, ie WWIII, is not "drama" but mature and responsible thinking.


IN the context of our having a disagreement, your overblown rhetoric about how stupid i "must" be based solely on me having a different opinion than you, yes is you being a drama queen.

And narrow minded.

My point stands, you have not done anything to challenge it, other than call me names.

Our political class has been stuck in COld War thinking and knee jerk hostility towards Russia.

Trump would be a serious change from that outdated thinking.


A change for the good.

Lets take steps to avoid WWIII.

Vote Trump.

You jerk.

We don't have a policy of hostility towards Russia. We have a policy of self-interest for the United States. (Whether Obama has pursued that well is another issue.)

If that clashes with Russia, so be it. We are the most powerful nation on earth, and we don't have to subsume our interests to a declining power.

Russia pursues its interests in the same manner. Except the rise of Russian nationalism is driven in part by anti-Western sentiment that is deeply rooted in its society dating back to the Cold War.

And Russia was far more of a nuclear power then than now. And we didn't back down then either.

When the USSR was a global nuclear power, we aggressively pursued our interests. We didn't kowtow to them. There was no WWIII then, and there won't be now.

It's fascinating to watch the so-called right in America want to cozy up to the statist, expansionist Russia. It was the left that wanted to do that in the past.

Can you explain to me how American interests were served by our supporting the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine? For one example.

We have a strategic interest in Europe. Russia does as well. It is in our interests that Russia is a weakened rival in Europe.

Do you want to play football at their 5-yard line or at midfield? Being involved in Ukraine is playing football on their 5-yard line.

We also generally have an interest in pluralistic democracy. Russia is an anti-democratic state, often hostile to Western traditions and values, that wants to dominate its neighbors. It's no different than the rivalry between freedom and communism, except that Putin isn't as bad as the communists.

It is in the US's interests for the Ukraine to be in a pluralistic Europe, a historical ally of America, than under the domination of Russia, which is not.

The more allies Russia has, the more powerful it is, and the greater rival it is to the US. And vice-versa.

 

[candycorn]

The issue we are discussing is whether or not to have a policy of hostility towards Russia, a large nation with a large nuclear stockpile.

Considering a very real possible outcome of such a policy, ie WWIII, is not "drama" but mature and responsible thinking.


IN the context of our having a disagreement, your overblown rhetoric about how stupid i "must" be based solely on me having a different opinion than you, yes is you being a drama queen.

And narrow minded.

My point stands, you have not done anything to challenge it, other than call me names.

Our political class has been stuck in COld War thinking and knee jerk hostility towards Russia.

Trump would be a serious change from that outdated thinking.


A change for the good.

Lets take steps to avoid WWIII.

Vote Trump.

You need a whole team of psychologists don't you boy?

And your response to my serious and honest post, was NOTHING but the Logical Fallacy of Ad hominem.


One of the primary propaganda techniques of the left.




As nothing in your post challenged or even addressed anything in my post, I will repost it for you and ask you to try again, only this time with a real answer, if you dare.


The issue we are discussing is whether or not to have a policy of hostility towards Russia, a large nation with a large nuclear stockpile.

Considering a very real possible outcome of such a policy, ie WWIII, is not "drama" but mature and responsible thinking.


IN the context of our having a disagreement, your overblown rhetoric about how stupid i "must" be based solely on me having a different opinion than you, yes is you being a drama queen.

And narrow minded.

My point stands, you have not done anything to challenge it, other than call me names.

Our political class has been stuck in COld War thinking and knee jerk hostility towards Russia.

Trump would be a serious change from that outdated thinking.


A change for the good.

Lets take steps to avoid WWIII.

Vote Trump.

You jerk.

We don't have a policy of hostility towards Russia. We have a policy of self-interest for the United States. (Whether Obama has pursued that well is another issue.)

If that clashes with Russia, so be it. We are the most powerful nation on earth, and we don't have to subsume our interests to a declining power.

Russia pursues its interests in the same manner. Except the rise of Russian nationalism is driven in part by anti-Western sentiment that is deeply rooted in its society dating back to the Cold War.

And Russia was far more of a nuclear power then than now. And we didn't back down then either.

When the USSR was a global nuclear power, we aggressively pursued our interests. We didn't kowtow to them. There was no WWIII then, and there won't be now.

It's fascinating to watch the so-called right in America want to cozy up to the statist, expansionist Russia. It was the left that wanted to do that in the past.

Can you explain to me how American interests were served by our supporting the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine? For one example.

We have a strategic interest in Europe. Russia does as well. It is in our interests that Russia is a weakened rival in Europe.

Do you want to play football at their 5-yard line or at midfield? Being involved in Ukraine is playing football on their 5-yard line.

We also generally have an interest in pluralistic democracy. Russia is an anti-democratic state, often hostile to Western traditions and values, that wants to dominate its neighbors. It's no different than the rivalry between freedom and communism, except that Putin isn't as bad as the communists.

It is in the US's interests for the Ukraine to be in a pluralistic Europe, a historical ally of America, than under the domination of Russia, which is not.

The more allies Russia has, the more powerful it is, and the greater rival it is to the US. And vice-versa.

Excellent point.

 

[Correll]

The issue we are discussing is whether or not to have a policy of hostility towards Russia, a large nation with a large nuclear stockpile.

Considering a very real possible outcome of such a policy, ie WWIII, is not "drama" but mature and responsible thinking.


IN the context of our having a disagreement, your overblown rhetoric about how stupid i "must" be based solely on me having a different opinion than you, yes is you being a drama queen.

And narrow minded.

My point stands, you have not done anything to challenge it, other than call me names.

Our political class has been stuck in COld War thinking and knee jerk hostility towards Russia.

Trump would be a serious change from that outdated thinking.


A change for the good.

Lets take steps to avoid WWIII.

Vote Trump.

You need a whole team of psychologists don't you boy?

And your response to my serious and honest post, was NOTHING but the Logical Fallacy of Ad hominem.


One of the primary propaganda techniques of the left.




As nothing in your post challenged or even addressed anything in my post, I will repost it for you and ask you to try again, only this time with a real answer, if you dare.


The issue we are discussing is whether or not to have a policy of hostility towards Russia, a large nation with a large nuclear stockpile.

Considering a very real possible outcome of such a policy, ie WWIII, is not "drama" but mature and responsible thinking.


IN the context of our having a disagreement, your overblown rhetoric about how stupid i "must" be based solely on me having a different opinion than you, yes is you being a drama queen.

And narrow minded.

My point stands, you have not done anything to challenge it, other than call me names.

Our political class has been stuck in COld War thinking and knee jerk hostility towards Russia.

Trump would be a serious change from that outdated thinking.


A change for the good.

Lets take steps to avoid WWIII.

Vote Trump.

You jerk.

We don't have a policy of hostility towards Russia. We have a policy of self-interest for the United States. (Whether Obama has pursued that well is another issue.)

If that clashes with Russia, so be it. We are the most powerful nation on earth, and we don't have to subsume our interests to a declining power.

Russia pursues its interests in the same manner. Except the rise of Russian nationalism is driven in part by anti-Western sentiment that is deeply rooted in its society dating back to the Cold War.

And Russia was far more of a nuclear power then than now. And we didn't back down then either.

When the USSR was a global nuclear power, we aggressively pursued our interests. We didn't kowtow to them. There was no WWIII then, and there won't be now.

It's fascinating to watch the so-called right in America want to cozy up to the statist, expansionist Russia. It was the left that wanted to do that in the past.

Can you explain to me how American interests were served by our supporting the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine? For one example.

We have a strategic interest in Europe. Russia does as well. It is in our interests that Russia is a weakened rival in Europe.

Do you want to play football at their 5-yard line or at midfield? Being involved in Ukraine is playing football on their 5-yard line.

We also generally have an interest in pluralistic democracy. Russia is an anti-democratic state, often hostile to Western traditions and values, that wants to dominate its neighbors. It's no different than the rivalry between freedom and communism, except that Putin isn't as bad as the communists.

It is in the US's interests for the Ukraine to be in a pluralistic Europe, a historical ally of America, than under the domination of Russia, which is not.

The more allies Russia has, the more powerful it is, and the greater rival it is to the US. And vice-versa.

Our strategic interest in Europe during the COld War was that if the military and economic power of Western Europe was flipped from Our SIde to the Communist side, that that would lead to a Communist dominated World, which would be bad for US interests.

Russia does NOT have the power to do that. It is, as you correctly stated, a declining power.

Thus, imo, we do NOT have a strategic Interest in Europe at this time.

5 Yard or Mid field? I don't want play at all. The Cold War is over, and I'm completely prepared to live in peace with a nation on the far side of the world, who cannot threaten US.

The victory of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, shows that our interest in pluralistic Democracy is not as strong as we might have convinced ourselves during the Cold War.


Also, if we had NOT been screwing around in the Ukraine or the Black Sea, Russia might not be hostile to US at this point in time.

Neutral has a nice ring to it, imo.

Hell, with our similar issues with Islamic Terrorism, perhaps the Cold War could have been replaced with a Tepid Peace.

The more allies Russia has, the more of a rival it is to Poland, Germany, Turkey.


Nato, WITHOUT the US, has a population of over FIVE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION PEOPLE

vs

Russia with ONE hundred and forty million.

 

[Correll]

You need a whole team of psychologists don't you boy?

And your response to my serious and honest post, was NOTHING but the Logical Fallacy of Ad hominem.


One of the primary propaganda techniques of the left.




As nothing in your post challenged or even addressed anything in my post, I will repost it for you and ask you to try again, only this time with a real answer, if you dare.


The issue we are discussing is whether or not to have a policy of hostility towards Russia, a large nation with a large nuclear stockpile.

Considering a very real possible outcome of such a policy, ie WWIII, is not "drama" but mature and responsible thinking.


IN the context of our having a disagreement, your overblown rhetoric about how stupid i "must" be based solely on me having a different opinion than you, yes is you being a drama queen.

And narrow minded.

My point stands, you have not done anything to challenge it, other than call me names.

Our political class has been stuck in COld War thinking and knee jerk hostility towards Russia.

Trump would be a serious change from that outdated thinking.


A change for the good.

Lets take steps to avoid WWIII.

Vote Trump.

You jerk.

We don't have a policy of hostility towards Russia. We have a policy of self-interest for the United States. (Whether Obama has pursued that well is another issue.)

If that clashes with Russia, so be it. We are the most powerful nation on earth, and we don't have to subsume our interests to a declining power.

Russia pursues its interests in the same manner. Except the rise of Russian nationalism is driven in part by anti-Western sentiment that is deeply rooted in its society dating back to the Cold War.

And Russia was far more of a nuclear power then than now. And we didn't back down then either.

When the USSR was a global nuclear power, we aggressively pursued our interests. We didn't kowtow to them. There was no WWIII then, and there won't be now.

It's fascinating to watch the so-called right in America want to cozy up to the statist, expansionist Russia. It was the left that wanted to do that in the past.

Can you explain to me how American interests were served by our supporting the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine? For one example.

We have a strategic interest in Europe. Russia does as well. It is in our interests that Russia is a weakened rival in Europe.

Do you want to play football at their 5-yard line or at midfield? Being involved in Ukraine is playing football on their 5-yard line.

We also generally have an interest in pluralistic democracy. Russia is an anti-democratic state, often hostile to Western traditions and values, that wants to dominate its neighbors. It's no different than the rivalry between freedom and communism, except that Putin isn't as bad as the communists.

It is in the US's interests for the Ukraine to be in a pluralistic Europe, a historical ally of America, than under the domination of Russia, which is not.

The more allies Russia has, the more powerful it is, and the greater rival it is to the US. And vice-versa.

Excellent point.

During the COLD War when the Soviet Union was a real threat, lefties like you would have called such talk warmongering.

Hell, that's the way Reagan talked and he was ridiculed as an irresponsible Cowboy.

Now that Reagan won the Cold War and Russia in no longer a threat, now you grow balls and want an aggressive foreign policy.

 

[Toro]

You need a whole team of psychologists don't you boy?

And your response to my serious and honest post, was NOTHING but the Logical Fallacy of Ad hominem.


One of the primary propaganda techniques of the left.




As nothing in your post challenged or even addressed anything in my post, I will repost it for you and ask you to try again, only this time with a real answer, if you dare.


The issue we are discussing is whether or not to have a policy of hostility towards Russia, a large nation with a large nuclear stockpile.

Considering a very real possible outcome of such a policy, ie WWIII, is not "drama" but mature and responsible thinking.


IN the context of our having a disagreement, your overblown rhetoric about how stupid i "must" be based solely on me having a different opinion than you, yes is you being a drama queen.

And narrow minded.

My point stands, you have not done anything to challenge it, other than call me names.

Our political class has been stuck in COld War thinking and knee jerk hostility towards Russia.

Trump would be a serious change from that outdated thinking.


A change for the good.

Lets take steps to avoid WWIII.

Vote Trump.

You jerk.

We don't have a policy of hostility towards Russia. We have a policy of self-interest for the United States. (Whether Obama has pursued that well is another issue.)

If that clashes with Russia, so be it. We are the most powerful nation on earth, and we don't have to subsume our interests to a declining power.

Russia pursues its interests in the same manner. Except the rise of Russian nationalism is driven in part by anti-Western sentiment that is deeply rooted in its society dating back to the Cold War.

And Russia was far more of a nuclear power then than now. And we didn't back down then either.

When the USSR was a global nuclear power, we aggressively pursued our interests. We didn't kowtow to them. There was no WWIII then, and there won't be now.

It's fascinating to watch the so-called right in America want to cozy up to the statist, expansionist Russia. It was the left that wanted to do that in the past.

Can you explain to me how American interests were served by our supporting the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine? For one example.

We have a strategic interest in Europe. Russia does as well. It is in our interests that Russia is a weakened rival in Europe.

Do you want to play football at their 5-yard line or at midfield? Being involved in Ukraine is playing football on their 5-yard line.

We also generally have an interest in pluralistic democracy. Russia is an anti-democratic state, often hostile to Western traditions and values, that wants to dominate its neighbors. It's no different than the rivalry between freedom and communism, except that Putin isn't as bad as the communists.

It is in the US's interests for the Ukraine to be in a pluralistic Europe, a historical ally of America, than under the domination of Russia, which is not.

The more allies Russia has, the more powerful it is, and the greater rival it is to the US. And vice-versa.

Our strategic interest in Europe during the COld War was that if the military and economic power of Western Europe was flipped from Our SIde to the Communist side, that that would lead to a Communist dominated World, which would be bad for US interests.

Russia does NOT have the power to do that. It is, as you correctly stated, a declining power.

Thus, imo, we do NOT have a strategic Interest in Europe at this time.

5 Yard or Mid field? I don't want play at all. The Cold War is over, and I'm completely prepared to live in peace with a nation on the far side of the world, who cannot threaten US.

The victory of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, shows that our interest in pluralistic Democracy is not as strong as we might have convinced ourselves during the Cold War.


Also, if we had NOT been screwing around in the Ukraine or the Black Sea, Russia might not be hostile to US at this point in time.

Neutral has a nice ring to it, imo.

Hell, with our similar issues with Islamic Terrorism, perhaps the Cold War could have been replaced with a Tepid Peace.

The more allies Russia has, the more of a rival it is to Poland, Germany, Turkey.


Nato, WITHOUT the US, has a population of over FIVE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION PEOPLE

vs

Russia with ONE hundred and forty million.

You asked what our strategic interests in the Ukraine were. I answered. Whether you - or I - agree with it is beside the point.

You were worried earlier about nuclear war and WWIII with Russia. So your assertion that Russia isn't a threat to us isn't true.

We would like to see Russia stable and prosperous. But Russia has chosen a path that is hostile to the West. That doesn't mean Russia is an enemy like during the Cold War. But it is a rival to American power and prosperity.

America has no choice but to be engaged in the world. Our economies are too integrated to not be. It is fair to question the extent, but we must remain on the field.

 

[candycorn]

And your response to my serious and honest post, was NOTHING but the Logical Fallacy of Ad hominem.


One of the primary propaganda techniques of the left.




As nothing in your post challenged or even addressed anything in my post, I will repost it for you and ask you to try again, only this time with a real answer, if you dare.


The issue we are discussing is whether or not to have a policy of hostility towards Russia, a large nation with a large nuclear stockpile.

Considering a very real possible outcome of such a policy, ie WWIII, is not "drama" but mature and responsible thinking.


IN the context of our having a disagreement, your overblown rhetoric about how stupid i "must" be based solely on me having a different opinion than you, yes is you being a drama queen.

And narrow minded.

My point stands, you have not done anything to challenge it, other than call me names.

Our political class has been stuck in COld War thinking and knee jerk hostility towards Russia.

Trump would be a serious change from that outdated thinking.


A change for the good.

Lets take steps to avoid WWIII.

Vote Trump.

You jerk.

We don't have a policy of hostility towards Russia. We have a policy of self-interest for the United States. (Whether Obama has pursued that well is another issue.)

If that clashes with Russia, so be it. We are the most powerful nation on earth, and we don't have to subsume our interests to a declining power.

Russia pursues its interests in the same manner. Except the rise of Russian nationalism is driven in part by anti-Western sentiment that is deeply rooted in its society dating back to the Cold War.

And Russia was far more of a nuclear power then than now. And we didn't back down then either.

When the USSR was a global nuclear power, we aggressively pursued our interests. We didn't kowtow to them. There was no WWIII then, and there won't be now.

It's fascinating to watch the so-called right in America want to cozy up to the statist, expansionist Russia. It was the left that wanted to do that in the past.

Can you explain to me how American interests were served by our supporting the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine? For one example.

We have a strategic interest in Europe. Russia does as well. It is in our interests that Russia is a weakened rival in Europe.

Do you want to play football at their 5-yard line or at midfield? Being involved in Ukraine is playing football on their 5-yard line.

We also generally have an interest in pluralistic democracy. Russia is an anti-democratic state, often hostile to Western traditions and values, that wants to dominate its neighbors. It's no different than the rivalry between freedom and communism, except that Putin isn't as bad as the communists.

It is in the US's interests for the Ukraine to be in a pluralistic Europe, a historical ally of America, than under the domination of Russia, which is not.

The more allies Russia has, the more powerful it is, and the greater rival it is to the US. And vice-versa.

Excellent point.

During the COLD War when the Soviet Union was a real threat, lefties like you would have called such talk warmongering.

Hell, that's the way Reagan talked and he was ridiculed as an irresponsible Cowboy.

Now that Reagan won the Cold War and Russia in no longer a threat, now you grow balls and want an aggressive foreign policy.

“I will take their oil” DJT
He will, “Kick ISIS’s ass” Sarah Palin talking about Donald Trump.

The truth whispers louder than your lies.

 

[pismoe]

We don't have a policy of hostility towards Russia. We have a policy of self-interest for the United States. (Whether Obama has pursued that well is another issue.)

If that clashes with Russia, so be it. We are the most powerful nation on earth, and we don't have to subsume our interests to a declining power.

Russia pursues its interests in the same manner. Except the rise of Russian nationalism is driven in part by anti-Western sentiment that is deeply rooted in its society dating back to the Cold War.

And Russia was far more of a nuclear power then than now. And we didn't back down then either.

When the USSR was a global nuclear power, we aggressively pursued our interests. We didn't kowtow to them. There was no WWIII then, and there won't be now.

It's fascinating to watch the so-called right in America want to cozy up to the statist, expansionist Russia. It was the left that wanted to do that in the past.

Can you explain to me how American interests were served by our supporting the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine? For one example.

We have a strategic interest in Europe. Russia does as well. It is in our interests that Russia is a weakened rival in Europe.

Do you want to play football at their 5-yard line or at midfield? Being involved in Ukraine is playing football on their 5-yard line.

We also generally have an interest in pluralistic democracy. Russia is an anti-democratic state, often hostile to Western traditions and values, that wants to dominate its neighbors. It's no different than the rivalry between freedom and communism, except that Putin isn't as bad as the communists.

It is in the US's interests for the Ukraine to be in a pluralistic Europe, a historical ally of America, than under the domination of Russia, which is not.

The more allies Russia has, the more powerful it is, and the greater rival it is to the US. And vice-versa.

Excellent point.

During the COLD War when the Soviet Union was a real threat, lefties like you would have called such talk warmongering.

Hell, that's the way Reagan talked and he was ridiculed as an irresponsible Cowboy.

Now that Reagan won the Cold War and Russia in no longer a threat, now you grow balls and want an aggressive foreign policy.

“I will take their oil” DJT
He will, “Kick ISIS’s ass” Sarah Palin talking about Donald Trump.

The truth whispers louder than your lies.

--------------------------------------- Good , hope that Trump does TAKE the oil that 'islamic state' controls . Trump then sells it thereby depriving the islamists of cash . Get your boots ready to go Candy .

 

[Uncensored2008]

We don't have a policy of hostility towards Russia. We have a policy of self-interest for the United States. (Whether Obama has pursued that well is another issue.)

If that clashes with Russia, so be it. We are the most powerful nation on earth, and we don't have to subsume our interests to a declining power.

Russia pursues its interests in the same manner. Except the rise of Russian nationalism is driven in part by anti-Western sentiment that is deeply rooted in its society dating back to the Cold War.

And Russia was far more of a nuclear power then than now. And we didn't back down then either.

When the USSR was a global nuclear power, we aggressively pursued our interests. We didn't kowtow to them. There was no WWIII then, and there won't be now.

It's fascinating to watch the so-called right in America want to cozy up to the statist, expansionist Russia. It was the left that wanted to do that in the past.

Can you explain to me how American interests were served by our supporting the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine? For one example.

We have a strategic interest in Europe. Russia does as well. It is in our interests that Russia is a weakened rival in Europe.

Do you want to play football at their 5-yard line or at midfield? Being involved in Ukraine is playing football on their 5-yard line.

We also generally have an interest in pluralistic democracy. Russia is an anti-democratic state, often hostile to Western traditions and values, that wants to dominate its neighbors. It's no different than the rivalry between freedom and communism, except that Putin isn't as bad as the communists.

It is in the US's interests for the Ukraine to be in a pluralistic Europe, a historical ally of America, than under the domination of Russia, which is not.

The more allies Russia has, the more powerful it is, and the greater rival it is to the US. And vice-versa.

Excellent point.

During the COLD War when the Soviet Union was a real threat, lefties like you would have called such talk warmongering.

Hell, that's the way Reagan talked and he was ridiculed as an irresponsible Cowboy.

Now that Reagan won the Cold War and Russia in no longer a threat, now you grow balls and want an aggressive foreign policy.

“I will take their oil” DJT
He will, “Kick ISIS’s ass” Sarah Palin talking about Donald Trump.

The truth whispers louder than your lies.

Will you fight on behalf of ISIS, to defend their income? How far will you scumbag democrats go?

 

[Boss]

HRC will not be abandoned by her Party members. Drumpf will.

As bad as I hate to say it, I believe you may be right. There will be 30% of the party who will stay at home if Trump wins the nomination, and 30% will stay home if Cruz wins.... and we can't defeat HRC that way.

-------------------------------------------- and then you moderate rinos that support the gop republican rinos get exactly what you deserve Boss .

Well... I am NOT a moderate or a rino. I am a constitutional conservative and have been for 40 years.

and WHO is this WE that loses to 'hrc' ?? I support Trump or Cruz and that's it . I could not care less if the 'gop' wins . In fact if they were to run a jebito bush , a roobio or Kasich I will vote for the 'hrc' Boss .

I don't care about the "GOP" either... but if we're all going to get mad at the GOP, it's not likely we're going to vote for the GOP candidate for president, is it? Just seems to be common fucking goat sense to me.

The thing that blows my mind is, you and I are on the SAME TEAM! Our principles and interests line up exactly! You say you will vote for Trump or Cruz, and I probably will too! You say you will vote for HRC if the GOP somehow installs someone else... I don't know that I could ever vote for HRC but I would probably stay home.

I am making an objective observation based on what I've seen and heard... mostly here at USMB. Trump vs. Cruz has gotten so hostile and nasty that the two factions are in danger of destroying any chance the GOP has in November. I wish it wasn't like that, but that's how I see it.

I blame this on TRUMP because, out of the gate, Ted Cruz met with Trump and they seemed to both be on the same page. Neither was attacking the other, they both seemed to align politically with their message... everything was looking like it could be the making of an unbeatable ticket. Then Trump wen't nasty. After dispatching Carson, he started in on Cruz... all the way down to the personal attacks on his family.

There was no need for that. Trump was leading in the polls, had a clear path to win the nomination... had he stayed clean and debated Cruz on substance and eventually went on to win... no one supporting Cruz would have any problem supporting Trump. But "Mr. Deal Maker" ...."Mr. I can work with anybody" ...didn't take the high road... he, with his supporters joining in, trashed and denigrated and smeared Ted Cruz up one side and down the other. Now you have the situation where Cruz supporters aren't going to support Trump and Trump supporters aren't going to support Cruz. And the Liberal Democrat base are absolutely GIDDY about this!

No, you have it all wrong. Cruz brought it on himself when he decided to stab Carson in the back by feeding and spreading false information about him through the media.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Except that's not what I saw happen or millions of other people. That's your SPIN... and it should at least tingle the spider senses of anyone on the right out there who buys into this meme that such a liberal left-wing gas bag as yourself is crowing it. Then again, they all learned their Alinsky tactics from you so you're probably like a Yoda to them.

 

[Correll]

We don't have a policy of hostility towards Russia. We have a policy of self-interest for the United States. (Whether Obama has pursued that well is another issue.)

If that clashes with Russia, so be it. We are the most powerful nation on earth, and we don't have to subsume our interests to a declining power.

Russia pursues its interests in the same manner. Except the rise of Russian nationalism is driven in part by anti-Western sentiment that is deeply rooted in its society dating back to the Cold War.

And Russia was far more of a nuclear power then than now. And we didn't back down then either.

When the USSR was a global nuclear power, we aggressively pursued our interests. We didn't kowtow to them. There was no WWIII then, and there won't be now.

It's fascinating to watch the so-called right in America want to cozy up to the statist, expansionist Russia. It was the left that wanted to do that in the past.

Can you explain to me how American interests were served by our supporting the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine? For one example.

We have a strategic interest in Europe. Russia does as well. It is in our interests that Russia is a weakened rival in Europe.

Do you want to play football at their 5-yard line or at midfield? Being involved in Ukraine is playing football on their 5-yard line.

We also generally have an interest in pluralistic democracy. Russia is an anti-democratic state, often hostile to Western traditions and values, that wants to dominate its neighbors. It's no different than the rivalry between freedom and communism, except that Putin isn't as bad as the communists.

It is in the US's interests for the Ukraine to be in a pluralistic Europe, a historical ally of America, than under the domination of Russia, which is not.

The more allies Russia has, the more powerful it is, and the greater rival it is to the US. And vice-versa.

Excellent point.

During the COLD War when the Soviet Union was a real threat, lefties like you would have called such talk warmongering.

Hell, that's the way Reagan talked and he was ridiculed as an irresponsible Cowboy.

Now that Reagan won the Cold War and Russia in no longer a threat, now you grow balls and want an aggressive foreign policy.

“I will take their oil” DJT
He will, “Kick ISIS’s ass” Sarah Palin talking about Donald Trump.

The truth whispers louder than your lies.

The Terrorist have been actually killing Americans and blowing up American stuff. THAT'S a real threat to our interests.


Russia pushing around Georgia is NOT.

 

[Correll]

And your response to my serious and honest post, was NOTHING but the Logical Fallacy of Ad hominem.


One of the primary propaganda techniques of the left.




As nothing in your post challenged or even addressed anything in my post, I will repost it for you and ask you to try again, only this time with a real answer, if you dare.


The issue we are discussing is whether or not to have a policy of hostility towards Russia, a large nation with a large nuclear stockpile.

Considering a very real possible outcome of such a policy, ie WWIII, is not "drama" but mature and responsible thinking.


IN the context of our having a disagreement, your overblown rhetoric about how stupid i "must" be based solely on me having a different opinion than you, yes is you being a drama queen.

And narrow minded.

My point stands, you have not done anything to challenge it, other than call me names.

Our political class has been stuck in COld War thinking and knee jerk hostility towards Russia.

Trump would be a serious change from that outdated thinking.


A change for the good.

Lets take steps to avoid WWIII.

Vote Trump.

You jerk.

We don't have a policy of hostility towards Russia. We have a policy of self-interest for the United States. (Whether Obama has pursued that well is another issue.)

If that clashes with Russia, so be it. We are the most powerful nation on earth, and we don't have to subsume our interests to a declining power.

Russia pursues its interests in the same manner. Except the rise of Russian nationalism is driven in part by anti-Western sentiment that is deeply rooted in its society dating back to the Cold War.

And Russia was far more of a nuclear power then than now. And we didn't back down then either.

When the USSR was a global nuclear power, we aggressively pursued our interests. We didn't kowtow to them. There was no WWIII then, and there won't be now.

It's fascinating to watch the so-called right in America want to cozy up to the statist, expansionist Russia. It was the left that wanted to do that in the past.

Can you explain to me how American interests were served by our supporting the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine? For one example.

We have a strategic interest in Europe. Russia does as well. It is in our interests that Russia is a weakened rival in Europe.

Do you want to play football at their 5-yard line or at midfield? Being involved in Ukraine is playing football on their 5-yard line.

We also generally have an interest in pluralistic democracy. Russia is an anti-democratic state, often hostile to Western traditions and values, that wants to dominate its neighbors. It's no different than the rivalry between freedom and communism, except that Putin isn't as bad as the communists.

It is in the US's interests for the Ukraine to be in a pluralistic Europe, a historical ally of America, than under the domination of Russia, which is not.

The more allies Russia has, the more powerful it is, and the greater rival it is to the US. And vice-versa.

Our strategic interest in Europe during the COld War was that if the military and economic power of Western Europe was flipped from Our SIde to the Communist side, that that would lead to a Communist dominated World, which would be bad for US interests.

Russia does NOT have the power to do that. It is, as you correctly stated, a declining power.

Thus, imo, we do NOT have a strategic Interest in Europe at this time.

5 Yard or Mid field? I don't want play at all. The Cold War is over, and I'm completely prepared to live in peace with a nation on the far side of the world, who cannot threaten US.

The victory of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, shows that our interest in pluralistic Democracy is not as strong as we might have convinced ourselves during the Cold War.


Also, if we had NOT been screwing around in the Ukraine or the Black Sea, Russia might not be hostile to US at this point in time.

Neutral has a nice ring to it, imo.

Hell, with our similar issues with Islamic Terrorism, perhaps the Cold War could have been replaced with a Tepid Peace.

The more allies Russia has, the more of a rival it is to Poland, Germany, Turkey.


Nato, WITHOUT the US, has a population of over FIVE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION PEOPLE

vs

Russia with ONE hundred and forty million.

You asked what our strategic interests in the Ukraine were. I answered. Whether you - or I - agree with it is beside the point.

You were worried earlier about nuclear war and WWIII with Russia. So your assertion that Russia isn't a threat to us isn't true.

We would like to see Russia stable and prosperous. But Russia has chosen a path that is hostile to the West. That doesn't mean Russia is an enemy like during the Cold War. But it is a rival to American power and prosperity.

America has no choice but to be engaged in the world. Our economies are too integrated to not be. It is fair to question the extent, but we must remain on the field.

Compared to the strategic interest of preventing the Soviet Union from conquering Western Europe and thus dominating the world,

our "strategic interest" in Europe is pretty minor, and IMO, not worth the risk of a major war with Russia.

 

[sakinago]

In the context of nato expansion, Western involvement in Georgian and the regime change in the Ukraine, such push back is to be expected.

You will find no examples of me complaining that Obama was not aggressive enough with Russia.

The Cold War is over. Stop screwing around with Russia.

Again, shit brains…what do you think not shooting at the Russian planes is doing? That is an example of not “screwing around” with Russia.

But since you’ve brought it up; the Cold War is over (as Obama (the status quo)) has said for about 20 years now—glad you’ve caught up. Terrorism is the place where we spend blood and Treasure. Trump has said he will spend both blood and treasure over in the middle east.

HRC has not.

Sorry those are the facts. Gentlemen start your spin-gens.

Obama has been supporting the Ukraine in it's conflict with Russia. He has organized sanctions to wage economic warfare against Russia. He has increased military forces in Eastern Europe.

This is hardly "not screwing around with them".


If HIllary has not said she would not spend blood and treasure in the ME, it is only because she has not received anything but soft ball questions from the media.

I note you do not claim that she has a policy position of NOT spending such blood and treasure.

Ahh, the old “blame the media” strategy. It’s literally Drumpf’s only excuse.

If that is “screwing around with Russia"….you’re woefully negligent of world politics. But that was obvious from the beginning.

I see that you dismissed my minor point about the media and made fun of Trump's name.

Drumpf changed his name. Blame him; not me.

Other than that you in no way addressed my points, regarding our hostile actions towards Russia, nor what Hilllary's ME policy will be.

Meanwhile in the real world, economic sanctions are internationally considered the methodology by which executives show muscle without antagonizing the target too much. It’s only been that way for about 50 years turd breath…

HRC wil have a policy of striking when sufficiently provoked and avoiding long commitments to Boots on the ground which, as we have seen from the disastrous Bush years, is a losing strategy.

Trumpfs Strategy was to (at one time) “kick ISIS’s ass”…but today it is something different. Who knows how many more times he’ll flip flop. It’s a long way until November.

Kerry and obama are now calling for boots on the ground in Syria. So why should we believe Hillary is any different? And in what way did Qaddafi or Assad provoke us that required us backing not so admirable rebel forces to topple them, with no real plan in place afterwards?

Also there were many things that led to Japan attacking us at Pearl Harbor, and they weren't just because they didn't like us. You should look that up, before you resort to name calling. No need for that, this is the CDZ

 

[candycorn]

Sorry, I just want this to be said... As of now, I officially wash my hands of the GOP and anything that comes from the GOP in the next election cycle. IF Trump wins the GOP nomination and can somehow be elected president, I wash my hands of any policy or action he may take as president. I want this ON RECORD so that whenever things go tits up, I can show you where I rejected this man from the start and never wanted him to be the president. He does not represent me or the Conservative movement.

Why do I mention this? Because I already know what is going to come down should Trump win.... The Left will collectively attack everything he does, questionable or unquestionable, as being "far right" ...the fault of "the tea party" and "ultra-conservatives" and we'll be kicked in the balls repeatedly and held accountable. I want it KNOWN that this Constitutional Conservative is NOT associated with Donald Trump or any of his policies.
Thursday, April 26, 2016..... Recorded for posterity!

Now, to my fellow Trumpophile colleagues on the GOP side... With all due respect, I will refrain from getting down in the mud and wallowing around in personal insults with you. I am henceforth going to treat you in the same manner as liberal lefties who insist on trolling and harassing, personally insulting and denigrating, as opposed to discussing the issues on merit. You will be dispatched and your arguments summarily dismissed.

I personally think you are going to have that moment come in the 'glorious coming Trump reign' as president, when you realize what a Y-uge disastrous mistake you've made. Where that light-bulb goes off and you say... OMG, I can't believe I fell for this guy! When this all happens... I want everyone to know, I tried my best to tell you.... and he doesn't represent Constitutional Conservatives or the things we stand for. He will be WORSE than a Mitt Romney or John McCain could ever have dreamed of being. And every single bit of it will be laid at the feet of "The Conservative Right" by the radicals on the left. Here and now... I am NOT associated with this!

Wonder how the bath went?

 

[pismoe]

Sorry, I just want this to be said... As of now, I officially wash my hands of the GOP and anything that comes from the GOP in the next election cycle. IF Trump wins the GOP nomination and can somehow be elected president, I wash my hands of any policy or action he may take as president. I want this ON RECORD so that whenever things go tits up, I can show you where I rejected this man from the start and never wanted him to be the president. He does not represent me or the Conservative movement.

Why do I mention this? Because I already know what is going to come down should Trump win.... The Left will collectively attack everything he does, questionable or unquestionable, as being "far right" ...the fault of "the tea party" and "ultra-conservatives" and we'll be kicked in the balls repeatedly and held accountable. I want it KNOWN that this Constitutional Conservative is NOT associated with Donald Trump or any of his policies.
Thursday, April 26, 2016..... Recorded for posterity!

Now, to my fellow Trumpophile colleagues on the GOP side... With all due respect, I will refrain from getting down in the mud and wallowing around in personal insults with you. I am henceforth going to treat you in the same manner as liberal lefties who insist on trolling and harassing, personally insulting and denigrating, as opposed to discussing the issues on merit. You will be dispatched and your arguments summarily dismissed.

I personally think you are going to have that moment come in the 'glorious coming Trump reign' as president, when you realize what a Y-uge disastrous mistake you've made. Where that light-bulb goes off and you say... OMG, I can't believe I fell for this guy! When this all happens... I want everyone to know, I tried my best to tell you.... and he doesn't represent Constitutional Conservatives or the things we stand for. He will be WORSE than a Mitt Romney or John McCain could ever have dreamed of being. And every single bit of it will be laid at the feet of "The Conservative Right" by the radicals on the left. Here and now... I am NOT associated with this!

Wonder how the bath went?

-------------------------------------------------------------- yeah Boss , illary woulda been so much better eh Boss ??