Debate Now The 2016 Campaign, Election and Aftermath

[320 Years of History]

Posters, hand signs, yard signs, bullying, compliments, criticism, slurs, lies, insults, truth, slams, protests, digging up histories, dirty tricks, spin doctors, media distortions, robo calls, jammed e-mail boxes, endless ads on radio and television, optimism, nobility, and so many debates that they all start running together after awhile. . .

Yes it is election time in America once again.

This thread is devoted to anything and everything related to the current election cycle though comparisons to previous elections can be made. Impressions, fears, thoughts, convictions, anger, outrage, approval, who should win, who should be the veep choice, who should be in the cabinet, etc. It is all fair game within the rules for the thread.

Rules for this thread:

1. Zone One rules apply so keep it civil. To refresh your memory:
"Zone 1": . . .Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics."

2. Members must provide a brief summary of what any posted links will say and, as necessary, the OP will rule on what definitions apply for this thread only.

3. Reasonable friendly banter that doesn't derail the thread can be allowed, but otherwise please stay on topic.

Questions to be answered:

1. How are you feeling about the current election cycle? Hopeful? Fearful? Angry? Frustrated? Good? Why?

2. In your opinion, can the USA elect the right person to be President in November?

3. What are your primary interests in who gets elected? Why?

Note that the straw poll allows members to change their vote if they change their mind.

I'll try and keep it short, but this is what a good presidential team could look like for me.

President, Ted Cruz. I can go look at his record since 2012, may not agree with all of it, but it's consistent.

Vice president, Whomever will carry out the policy of the president if something should happen. Scott Walker would be good enough.

Secretary of state, probably Donald Trump (won't happen) give him a year to put up or shut up.

Surgeon General, Ben Carson. But he would have to be able to talk about sex as well as Zima virus. He has a calming manner about him and I figure he could do good there.

All I got for now.

Red:

You think Zima virus is a laughing matter? I caught it at least 24 times when it came out. Far from funny man.

????

 

[Crixus]

Posters, hand signs, yard signs, bullying, compliments, criticism, slurs, lies, insults, truth, slams, protests, digging up histories, dirty tricks, spin doctors, media distortions, robo calls, jammed e-mail boxes, endless ads on radio and television, optimism, nobility, and so many debates that they all start running together after awhile. . .

Yes it is election time in America once again.

This thread is devoted to anything and everything related to the current election cycle though comparisons to previous elections can be made. Impressions, fears, thoughts, convictions, anger, outrage, approval, who should win, who should be the veep choice, who should be in the cabinet, etc. It is all fair game within the rules for the thread.

Rules for this thread:

1. Zone One rules apply so keep it civil. To refresh your memory:
"Zone 1": . . .Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics."

2. Members must provide a brief summary of what any posted links will say and, as necessary, the OP will rule on what definitions apply for this thread only.

3. Reasonable friendly banter that doesn't derail the thread can be allowed, but otherwise please stay on topic.

Questions to be answered:

1. How are you feeling about the current election cycle? Hopeful? Fearful? Angry? Frustrated? Good? Why?

2. In your opinion, can the USA elect the right person to be President in November?

3. What are your primary interests in who gets elected? Why?

Note that the straw poll allows members to change their vote if they change their mind.

I'll try and keep it short, but this is what a good presidential team could look like for me.

President, Ted Cruz. I can go look at his record since 2012, may not agree with all of it, but it's consistent.

Vice president, Whomever will carry out the policy of the president if something should happen. Scott Walker would be good enough.

Secretary of state, probably Donald Trump (won't happen) give him a year to put up or shut up.

Surgeon General, Ben Carson. But he would have to be able to talk about sex as well as Zima virus. He has a calming manner about him and I figure he could do good there.

All I got for now.

Red:

You think Zima virus is a laughing matter? I caught it at least 24 times when it came out. Far from funny man.

????

Lame stab at humor. Sorry.

 

[320 Years of History]

Posters, hand signs, yard signs, bullying, compliments, criticism, slurs, lies, insults, truth, slams, protests, digging up histories, dirty tricks, spin doctors, media distortions, robo calls, jammed e-mail boxes, endless ads on radio and television, optimism, nobility, and so many debates that they all start running together after awhile. . .

Yes it is election time in America once again.

This thread is devoted to anything and everything related to the current election cycle though comparisons to previous elections can be made. Impressions, fears, thoughts, convictions, anger, outrage, approval, who should win, who should be the veep choice, who should be in the cabinet, etc. It is all fair game within the rules for the thread.

Rules for this thread:

1. Zone One rules apply so keep it civil. To refresh your memory:
"Zone 1": . . .Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics."

2. Members must provide a brief summary of what any posted links will say and, as necessary, the OP will rule on what definitions apply for this thread only.

3. Reasonable friendly banter that doesn't derail the thread can be allowed, but otherwise please stay on topic.

Questions to be answered:

1. How are you feeling about the current election cycle? Hopeful? Fearful? Angry? Frustrated? Good? Why?

2. In your opinion, can the USA elect the right person to be President in November?

3. What are your primary interests in who gets elected? Why?

Note that the straw poll allows members to change their vote if they change their mind.

I'll try and keep it short, but this is what a good presidential team could look like for me.

President, Ted Cruz. I can go look at his record since 2012, may not agree with all of it, but it's consistent.

Vice president, Whomever will carry out the policy of the president if something should happen. Scott Walker would be good enough.

Secretary of state, probably Donald Trump (won't happen) give him a year to put up or shut up.

Surgeon General, Ben Carson. But he would have to be able to talk about sex as well as Zima virus. He has a calming manner about him and I figure he could do good there.

All I got for now.

Red:

You think Zima virus is a laughing matter? I caught it at least 24 times when it came out. Far from funny man.

????

Lame stab at humor. Sorry.

TY for the explanation.

 

[Foxfyre]

Posters, hand signs, yard signs, bullying, compliments, criticism, slurs, lies, insults, truth, slams, protests, digging up histories, dirty tricks, spin doctors, media distortions, robo calls, jammed e-mail boxes, endless ads on radio and television, optimism, nobility, and so many debates that they all start running together after awhile. . .

Yes it is election time in America once again.

This thread is devoted to anything and everything related to the current election cycle though comparisons to previous elections can be made. Impressions, fears, thoughts, convictions, anger, outrage, approval, who should win, who should be the veep choice, who should be in the cabinet, etc. It is all fair game within the rules for the thread.

Rules for this thread:

1. Zone One rules apply so keep it civil. To refresh your memory:
"Zone 1": . . .Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics."

2. Members must provide a brief summary of what any posted links will say and, as necessary, the OP will rule on what definitions apply for this thread only.

3. Reasonable friendly banter that doesn't derail the thread can be allowed, but otherwise please stay on topic.

Questions to be answered:

1. How are you feeling about the current election cycle? Hopeful? Fearful? Angry? Frustrated? Good? Why?

2. In your opinion, can the USA elect the right person to be President in November?

3. What are your primary interests in who gets elected? Why?

Note that the straw poll allows members to change their vote if they change their mind.

I'll try and keep it short, but this is what a good presidential team could look like for me.

President, Ted Cruz. I can go look at his record since 2012, may not agree with all of it, but it's consistent.

Vice president, Whomever will carry out the policy of the president if something should happen. Scott Walker would be good enough.

Secretary of state, probably Donald Trump (won't happen) give him a year to put up or shut up.

Surgeon General, Ben Carson. But he would have to be able to talk about sex as well as Zika virus. He has a calming manner about him and I figure he could do good there.

All I got for now.

Walker's lack of a college degree is really problematic for a lot of folks. And he wasn't able to gain much traction and wasn't he the first to drop out of the primary process? I personally think he wouldn't be bad, but we need somebody to strengthen the ticket and I don't believe he would.

Somebody like Nikki Haley or Bobby Jindal or yes, Kasich, probably would generate more enthusiasm for Ted. But the path ahead is looking more favorable for Trump to get the requisite delegates. He is polling #1 in Indiana and California as of today.

 

[Crixus]

Posters, hand signs, yard signs, bullying, compliments, criticism, slurs, lies, insults, truth, slams, protests, digging up histories, dirty tricks, spin doctors, media distortions, robo calls, jammed e-mail boxes, endless ads on radio and television, optimism, nobility, and so many debates that they all start running together after awhile. . .

Yes it is election time in America once again.

This thread is devoted to anything and everything related to the current election cycle though comparisons to previous elections can be made. Impressions, fears, thoughts, convictions, anger, outrage, approval, who should win, who should be the veep choice, who should be in the cabinet, etc. It is all fair game within the rules for the thread.

Rules for this thread:

1. Zone One rules apply so keep it civil. To refresh your memory:
"Zone 1": . . .Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics."

2. Members must provide a brief summary of what any posted links will say and, as necessary, the OP will rule on what definitions apply for this thread only.

3. Reasonable friendly banter that doesn't derail the thread can be allowed, but otherwise please stay on topic.

Questions to be answered:

1. How are you feeling about the current election cycle? Hopeful? Fearful? Angry? Frustrated? Good? Why?

2. In your opinion, can the USA elect the right person to be President in November?

3. What are your primary interests in who gets elected? Why?

Note that the straw poll allows members to change their vote if they change their mind.

I'll try and keep it short, but this is what a good presidential team could look like for me.

President, Ted Cruz. I can go look at his record since 2012, may not agree with all of it, but it's consistent.

Vice president, Whomever will carry out the policy of the president if something should happen. Scott Walker would be good enough.

Secretary of state, probably Donald Trump (won't happen) give him a year to put up or shut up.

Surgeon General, Ben Carson. But he would have to be able to talk about sex as well as Zika virus. He has a calming manner about him and I figure he could do good there.

All I got for now.

Walker's lack of a college degree is really problematic for a lot of folks. And he wasn't able to gain much traction and wasn't he the first to drop out of the primary process? I personally think he wouldn't be bad, but we need somebody to strengthen the ticket and I don't believe he would.

Somebody like Nikki Haley or Bobby Jindal or yes, Kasich, probably would generate more enthusiasm for Ted. But the path ahead is looking more favorable for Trump to get the requisite delegates. He is polling #1 in Indiana and California as of today.

I could live with Kasich. Hard guy to hate. But his knowledge of congress and how to move around would be valuable. Even Trump would be dumb not to tap into that knowledge and experience.

 

[320 Years of History]

Posters, hand signs, yard signs, bullying, compliments, criticism, slurs, lies, insults, truth, slams, protests, digging up histories, dirty tricks, spin doctors, media distortions, robo calls, jammed e-mail boxes, endless ads on radio and television, optimism, nobility, and so many debates that they all start running together after awhile. . .

Yes it is election time in America once again.

This thread is devoted to anything and everything related to the current election cycle though comparisons to previous elections can be made. Impressions, fears, thoughts, convictions, anger, outrage, approval, who should win, who should be the veep choice, who should be in the cabinet, etc. It is all fair game within the rules for the thread.

Rules for this thread:

1. Zone One rules apply so keep it civil. To refresh your memory:
"Zone 1": . . .Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics."

2. Members must provide a brief summary of what any posted links will say and, as necessary, the OP will rule on what definitions apply for this thread only.

3. Reasonable friendly banter that doesn't derail the thread can be allowed, but otherwise please stay on topic.

Questions to be answered:

1. How are you feeling about the current election cycle? Hopeful? Fearful? Angry? Frustrated? Good? Why?

2. In your opinion, can the USA elect the right person to be President in November?

3. What are your primary interests in who gets elected? Why?

Note that the straw poll allows members to change their vote if they change their mind.

I'll try and keep it short, but this is what a good presidential team could look like for me.

President, Ted Cruz. I can go look at his record since 2012, may not agree with all of it, but it's consistent.

Vice president, Whomever will carry out the policy of the president if something should happen. Scott Walker would be good enough.

Secretary of state, probably Donald Trump (won't happen) give him a year to put up or shut up.

Surgeon General, Ben Carson. But he would have to be able to talk about sex as well as Zika virus. He has a calming manner about him and I figure he could do good there.

All I got for now.

Walker's lack of a college degree is really problematic for a lot of folks. And he wasn't able to gain much traction and wasn't he the first to drop out of the primary process? I personally think he wouldn't be bad, but we need somebody to strengthen the ticket and I don't believe he would.

Somebody like Nikki Haley or Bobby Jindal or yes, Kasich, probably would generate more enthusiasm for Ted. But the path ahead is looking more favorable for Trump to get the requisite delegates. He is polling #1 in Indiana and California as of today.

I could live with Kasich. Hard guy to hate. But his knowledge of congress and how to move around would be valuable. Even Trump would be dumb not to tap into that knowledge and experience.

Do you mean Kasich as SecState? Or as President?

Kasich has his pros and cons, but I'm very unlikely to vote for him, partly because I doubt he'll be among the choices for President, and partly because I have problems with some of his key points, ones that matter to me. Those points (taken from here and considered only at the level presented there) are:

• Foreign Policy:
  • ISIS: "Wiping ISIS off the map requires a complex, collaborative strategy involving mutual defense action by NATO—as well as regional allies—in the wake of the attack on France, intensifying international intelligence cooperation, increasing support to the highly-effective Kurdish military, creating safe havens and no-fly zones, combating human trafficking in refugees, a NATO & regional coalition with ground troops, and more aggressively fighting the war of ideas to discredit ISIS."
    • Vacuous remark. I don't need him to tell me what's required, I need to hear what he'd do to achieve what's required and how he'd go about doing it. Just to illustrate why I find the statement vacuous let's look at two pieces of it:
      • "increasing support to the highly-effective Kurdish military" -- How? What kind of support -- ground troops, air support, leadership guidance, operational support, intelligence support, handouts of food, loans....some specifics on what he thinks will "do a the trick" or suffice, please? He wants to be President; he should have enough of an understanding of the topic/issue to have some sort of specific actions/tactics that he thinks will work to some degree or other. Did he so much as give one? No.
      • "more aggressively fighting the war of ideas to discredit ISIS" -- Okay...discredit ISIS with what audience? It's clearly not Americans and it's almost certainly not Jews either. Is the audience to be Afghans, Saudis, Muslims the world over, the Chinese, the Russians, Sunnis, Shites, impressionable Arab or Muslim males, impressionable Arab or Muslim females, etc.? Some of those groups? All of those groups? All of them at once, or different groups at different times, systematically and in something like a linear sequence?
  • Alliances: "There is strength in numbers and consensus, but our allies feel neglected and abused. We must rebuild these critical relationships in order to better advance our national interests the leadership that produces much-needed global stability. Among other actions, this includes standing by Israel—our strongest ally in the Middle East, supporting Ukraine in its challenges from Russia, standing by Egypt as it fights terrorist insurgencies from Sinai and Libya, supporting our Pacific allies in the face of Chinese belligerence and supporting Israeli efforts defend itself and oppose Iranian-backed terrorism in the region.
    • Other than the Saudis, which of our allied governments has determined the U.S. had "neglected and abused" them?
      • The Saudis it'd seem, and why do they feel that way?
        • Because they risk having billions of dollars of their money frozen in U.S. banks and doled out to 9/11 survivors or families of survivors? (The integrity that accompanies the U.S. wanting reciprocal immunity for it's people and resources overseas is the only reason I think the Saudi government should remain immune from civil suits brought in U.S. courts.)
        • Because they want the U.S. to give equal priority to removing/toppling any and every Shiite leader and/or state and destroying ISIS, which, as an outgrowth of Al Qaeda is, frankly, is an organization that indirectly they caused in the first place.
      • Frankly, I think the Saudis ought to count their lucky stars that the U.S. government in any way at all still considers them somewhat of an ally, enough of one that the U.S. is bothering to try to reconcile and resolve the differences between them and us as nations.
  • Cyber Defense: "We must defend against cyber attacks on our government and businesses, as well as counter the online activities of jihadis and other opponents. We must work with our allies to identify sources of attack and develop a coordinated response to anyone that attacks the resources of our government and the private sector."
    • Does that man actually think the U.S. is not already doing that? We've been doing it since long before the Obama Administration. Cyber defence and hacking is a matter of "leapfrogging:"
      1. A finds a weakness and exploits it.
      2. B "closes the hole" and looks for weaknesses in A's software and hardware.
      3. B finds a weakness and exploits it.
      4. Repeat as needed...
      • It's an interminable "back and forth." There's nobody who doesn't try to anticipate weaknesses before deploying technology, but nobody is perfect. The reality of software is that with enough time and money, nearly anything can be done. The question isn't "can we do it?" It's "are we willing to pay for it?" It's purely a risk management matter.

Even as I do care about the several topics I noted above, more importantly than Mr. Kasich's specific remarks about them is the lack of rigor and specificity in the content itself. That dearth of detail leads me to believe the man doesn't have much of a full grasp of the subject matter. Compare and contrast that with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, or even with a host of sitting Senators and Representatives (either party) or Administration officials from Obama's or Bush's Presidencies, who not only make the kinds of very high level statements Mr. Kasich has, but also provide detailed (more detailed) information about how they'd address the issues/problems they identify. Both the Dem. candidates have done so in debate after debate. Heck, there are a handful of folks on USMB (again, spanning party affiliation) even who bother to delve into the details of a topic and gain an comprehensive understanding that allows them to more cogently and substantively discuss and propose ideas than has Mr. Kasich.

 

[Crixus]

Posters, hand signs, yard signs, bullying, compliments, criticism, slurs, lies, insults, truth, slams, protests, digging up histories, dirty tricks, spin doctors, media distortions, robo calls, jammed e-mail boxes, endless ads on radio and television, optimism, nobility, and so many debates that they all start running together after awhile. . .

Yes it is election time in America once again.

This thread is devoted to anything and everything related to the current election cycle though comparisons to previous elections can be made. Impressions, fears, thoughts, convictions, anger, outrage, approval, who should win, who should be the veep choice, who should be in the cabinet, etc. It is all fair game within the rules for the thread.

Rules for this thread:

1. Zone One rules apply so keep it civil. To refresh your memory:
"Zone 1": . . .Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics."

2. Members must provide a brief summary of what any posted links will say and, as necessary, the OP will rule on what definitions apply for this thread only.

3. Reasonable friendly banter that doesn't derail the thread can be allowed, but otherwise please stay on topic.

Questions to be answered:

1. How are you feeling about the current election cycle? Hopeful? Fearful? Angry? Frustrated? Good? Why?

2. In your opinion, can the USA elect the right person to be President in November?

3. What are your primary interests in who gets elected? Why?

Note that the straw poll allows members to change their vote if they change their mind.

I'll try and keep it short, but this is what a good presidential team could look like for me.

President, Ted Cruz. I can go look at his record since 2012, may not agree with all of it, but it's consistent.

Vice president, Whomever will carry out the policy of the president if something should happen. Scott Walker would be good enough.

Secretary of state, probably Donald Trump (won't happen) give him a year to put up or shut up.

Surgeon General, Ben Carson. But he would have to be able to talk about sex as well as Zika virus. He has a calming manner about him and I figure he could do good there.

All I got for now.

Walker's lack of a college degree is really problematic for a lot of folks. And he wasn't able to gain much traction and wasn't he the first to drop out of the primary process? I personally think he wouldn't be bad, but we need somebody to strengthen the ticket and I don't believe he would.

Somebody like Nikki Haley or Bobby Jindal or yes, Kasich, probably would generate more enthusiasm for Ted. But the path ahead is looking more favorable for Trump to get the requisite delegates. He is polling #1 in Indiana and California as of today.

I could live with Kasich. Hard guy to hate. But his knowledge of congress and how to move around would be valuable. Even Trump would be dumb not to tap into that knowledge and experience.

Do you mean Kasich as SecState? Or as President?

Kasich has his pros and cons, but I'm very unlikely to vote for him, partly because I doubt he'll be among the choices for President, and partly because I have problems with some of his key points, ones that matter to me. Those points (taken from here and considered only at the level presented there) are:

• Foreign Policy:
  • ISIS: "Wiping ISIS off the map requires a complex, collaborative strategy involving mutual defense action by NATO—as well as regional allies—in the wake of the attack on France, intensifying international intelligence cooperation, increasing support to the highly-effective Kurdish military, creating safe havens and no-fly zones, combating human trafficking in refugees, a NATO & regional coalition with ground troops, and more aggressively fighting the war of ideas to discredit ISIS."
    • Vacuous remark. I don't need him to tell me what's required, I need to hear what he'd do to achieve what's required and how he'd go about doing it. Just to illustrate why I find the statement vacuous let's look at two pieces of it:
      • "increasing support to the highly-effective Kurdish military" -- How? What kind of support -- ground troops, air support, leadership guidance, operational support, intelligence support, handouts of food, loans....some specifics on what he thinks will "do a the trick" or suffice, please? He wants to be President; he should have enough of an understanding of the topic/issue to have some sort of specific actions/tactics that he thinks will work to some degree or other. Did he so much as give one? No.
      • "more aggressively fighting the war of ideas to discredit ISIS" -- Okay...discredit ISIS with what audience? It's clearly not Americans and it's almost certainly not Jews either. Is the audience to be Afghans, Saudis, Muslims the world over, the Chinese, the Russians, Sunnis, Shites, impressionable Arab or Muslim males, impressionable Arab or Muslim females, etc.? Some of those groups? All of those groups? All of them at once, or different groups at different times, systematically and in something like a linear sequence?
  • Alliances: "There is strength in numbers and consensus, but our allies feel neglected and abused. We must rebuild these critical relationships in order to better advance our national interests the leadership that produces much-needed global stability. Among other actions, this includes standing by Israel—our strongest ally in the Middle East, supporting Ukraine in its challenges from Russia, standing by Egypt as it fights terrorist insurgencies from Sinai and Libya, supporting our Pacific allies in the face of Chinese belligerence and supporting Israeli efforts defend itself and oppose Iranian-backed terrorism in the region.
    • Other than the Saudis, which of our allied governments has determined the U.S. had "neglected and abused" them?
      • The Saudis it'd seem, and why do they feel that way?
        • Because they risk having billions of dollars of their money frozen in U.S. banks and doled out to 9/11 survivors or families of survivors? (The integrity that accompanies the U.S. wanting reciprocal immunity for it's people and resources overseas is the only reason I think the Saudi government should remain immune from civil suits brought in U.S. courts.)
        • Because they want the U.S. to give equal priority to removing/toppling any and every Shiite leader and/or state and destroying ISIS, which, as an outgrowth of Al Qaeda is, frankly, is an organization that indirectly they caused in the first place.
      • Frankly, I think the Saudis ought to count their lucky stars that the U.S. government in any way at all still considers them somewhat of an ally, enough of one that the U.S. is bothering to try to reconcile and resolve the differences between them and us as nations.
  • Cyber Defense: "We must defend against cyber attacks on our government and businesses, as well as counter the online activities of jihadis and other opponents. We must work with our allies to identify sources of attack and develop a coordinated response to anyone that attacks the resources of our government and the private sector."
    • Does that man actually think the U.S. is not already doing that? We've been doing it since long before the Obama Administration. Cyber defence and hacking is a matter of "leapfrogging:"
      1. A finds a weakness and exploits it.
      2. B "closes the hole" and looks for weaknesses in A's software and hardware.
      3. B finds a weakness and exploits it.
      4. Repeat as needed...
      • It's an interminable "back and forth." There's nobody who doesn't try to anticipate weaknesses before deploying technology, but nobody is perfect. The reality of software is that with enough time and money, nearly anything can be done. The question isn't "can we do it?" It's "are we willing to pay for it?" It's purely a risk management matter.

Even as I do care about the several topics I noted above, more importantly than Mr. Kasich's specific remarks about them is the lack of rigor and specificity in the content itself. That dearth of detail leads me to believe the man doesn't have much of a full grasp of the subject matter. Compare and contrast that with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, or even with a host of sitting Senators and Representatives (either party) or Administration officials from Obama's or Bush's Presidencies, who not only make the kinds of very high level statements Mr. Kasich has, but also provide detailed (more detailed) information about how they'd address the issues/problems they identify. Both the Dem. candidates have done so in debate after debate. Heck, there are a handful of folks on USMB (again, spanning party affiliation) even who bother to delve into the details of a topic and gain an comprehensive understanding that allows them to more cogently and substantively discuss and propose ideas than has Mr. Kasich.

I'm good with Kasich being any place he can't write and execute policy. He is to much like Hillary for that. But Kasich would be a good VP choice especially for Trump.

 

[Foxfyre]

Posters, hand signs, yard signs, bullying, compliments, criticism, slurs, lies, insults, truth, slams, protests, digging up histories, dirty tricks, spin doctors, media distortions, robo calls, jammed e-mail boxes, endless ads on radio and television, optimism, nobility, and so many debates that they all start running together after awhile. . .

Yes it is election time in America once again.

This thread is devoted to anything and everything related to the current election cycle though comparisons to previous elections can be made. Impressions, fears, thoughts, convictions, anger, outrage, approval, who should win, who should be the veep choice, who should be in the cabinet, etc. It is all fair game within the rules for the thread.

Rules for this thread:

1. Zone One rules apply so keep it civil. To refresh your memory:
"Zone 1": . . .Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics."

2. Members must provide a brief summary of what any posted links will say and, as necessary, the OP will rule on what definitions apply for this thread only.

3. Reasonable friendly banter that doesn't derail the thread can be allowed, but otherwise please stay on topic.

Questions to be answered:

1. How are you feeling about the current election cycle? Hopeful? Fearful? Angry? Frustrated? Good? Why?

2. In your opinion, can the USA elect the right person to be President in November?

3. What are your primary interests in who gets elected? Why?

Note that the straw poll allows members to change their vote if they change their mind.

I'll try and keep it short, but this is what a good presidential team could look like for me.

President, Ted Cruz. I can go look at his record since 2012, may not agree with all of it, but it's consistent.

Vice president, Whomever will carry out the policy of the president if something should happen. Scott Walker would be good enough.

Secretary of state, probably Donald Trump (won't happen) give him a year to put up or shut up.

Surgeon General, Ben Carson. But he would have to be able to talk about sex as well as Zika virus. He has a calming manner about him and I figure he could do good there.

All I got for now.

Walker's lack of a college degree is really problematic for a lot of folks. And he wasn't able to gain much traction and wasn't he the first to drop out of the primary process? I personally think he wouldn't be bad, but we need somebody to strengthen the ticket and I don't believe he would.

Somebody like Nikki Haley or Bobby Jindal or yes, Kasich, probably would generate more enthusiasm for Ted. But the path ahead is looking more favorable for Trump to get the requisite delegates. He is polling #1 in Indiana and California as of today.

I could live with Kasich. Hard guy to hate. But his knowledge of congress and how to move around would be valuable. Even Trump would be dumb not to tap into that knowledge and experience.

Do you mean Kasich as SecState? Or as President?

Kasich has his pros and cons, but I'm very unlikely to vote for him, partly because I doubt he'll be among the choices for President, and partly because I have problems with some of his key points, ones that matter to me. Those points (taken from here and considered only at the level presented there) are:

• Foreign Policy:
  • ISIS: "Wiping ISIS off the map requires a complex, collaborative strategy involving mutual defense action by NATO—as well as regional allies—in the wake of the attack on France, intensifying international intelligence cooperation, increasing support to the highly-effective Kurdish military, creating safe havens and no-fly zones, combating human trafficking in refugees, a NATO & regional coalition with ground troops, and more aggressively fighting the war of ideas to discredit ISIS."
    • Vacuous remark. I don't need him to tell me what's required, I need to hear what he'd do to achieve what's required and how he'd go about doing it. Just to illustrate why I find the statement vacuous let's look at two pieces of it:
      • "increasing support to the highly-effective Kurdish military" -- How? What kind of support -- ground troops, air support, leadership guidance, operational support, intelligence support, handouts of food, loans....some specifics on what he thinks will "do a the trick" or suffice, please? He wants to be President; he should have enough of an understanding of the topic/issue to have some sort of specific actions/tactics that he thinks will work to some degree or other. Did he so much as give one? No.
      • "more aggressively fighting the war of ideas to discredit ISIS" -- Okay...discredit ISIS with what audience? It's clearly not Americans and it's almost certainly not Jews either. Is the audience to be Afghans, Saudis, Muslims the world over, the Chinese, the Russians, Sunnis, Shites, impressionable Arab or Muslim males, impressionable Arab or Muslim females, etc.? Some of those groups? All of those groups? All of them at once, or different groups at different times, systematically and in something like a linear sequence?
  • Alliances: "There is strength in numbers and consensus, but our allies feel neglected and abused. We must rebuild these critical relationships in order to better advance our national interests the leadership that produces much-needed global stability. Among other actions, this includes standing by Israel—our strongest ally in the Middle East, supporting Ukraine in its challenges from Russia, standing by Egypt as it fights terrorist insurgencies from Sinai and Libya, supporting our Pacific allies in the face of Chinese belligerence and supporting Israeli efforts defend itself and oppose Iranian-backed terrorism in the region.
    • Other than the Saudis, which of our allied governments has determined the U.S. had "neglected and abused" them?
      • The Saudis it'd seem, and why do they feel that way?
        • Because they risk having billions of dollars of their money frozen in U.S. banks and doled out to 9/11 survivors or families of survivors? (The integrity that accompanies the U.S. wanting reciprocal immunity for it's people and resources overseas is the only reason I think the Saudi government should remain immune from civil suits brought in U.S. courts.)
        • Because they want the U.S. to give equal priority to removing/toppling any and every Shiite leader and/or state and destroying ISIS, which, as an outgrowth of Al Qaeda is, frankly, is an organization that indirectly they caused in the first place.
      • Frankly, I think the Saudis ought to count their lucky stars that the U.S. government in any way at all still considers them somewhat of an ally, enough of one that the U.S. is bothering to try to reconcile and resolve the differences between them and us as nations.
  • Cyber Defense: "We must defend against cyber attacks on our government and businesses, as well as counter the online activities of jihadis and other opponents. We must work with our allies to identify sources of attack and develop a coordinated response to anyone that attacks the resources of our government and the private sector."
    • Does that man actually think the U.S. is not already doing that? We've been doing it since long before the Obama Administration. Cyber defence and hacking is a matter of "leapfrogging:"
      1. A finds a weakness and exploits it.
      2. B "closes the hole" and looks for weaknesses in A's software and hardware.
      3. B finds a weakness and exploits it.
      4. Repeat as needed...
      • It's an interminable "back and forth." There's nobody who doesn't try to anticipate weaknesses before deploying technology, but nobody is perfect. The reality of software is that with enough time and money, nearly anything can be done. The question isn't "can we do it?" It's "are we willing to pay for it?" It's purely a risk management matter.

Even as I do care about the several topics I noted above, more importantly than Mr. Kasich's specific remarks about them is the lack of rigor and specificity in the content itself. That dearth of detail leads me to believe the man doesn't have much of a full grasp of the subject matter. Compare and contrast that with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, or even with a host of sitting Senators and Representatives (either party) or Administration officials from Obama's or Bush's Presidencies, who not only make the kinds of very high level statements Mr. Kasich has, but also provide detailed (more detailed) information about how they'd address the issues/problems they identify. Both the Dem. candidates have done so in debate after debate. Heck, there are a handful of folks on USMB (again, spanning party affiliation) even who bother to delve into the details of a topic and gain an comprehensive understanding that allows them to more cogently and substantively discuss and propose ideas than has Mr. Kasich.

I'm good with Kasich being any place he can't write and execute policy. He is to much like Hillary for that. But Kasich would be a good VP choice especially for Trump.

Do you really think Kasich and Hillary are alike? In what way? I'm not seeing that.

 

[HenryBHough]

Do you really think Kasich and Hillary are alike? In what way? I'm not seeing that.

Take a good look at the pants.

Notice who seems to look most natural in that style.....

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you really think Kasich and Hillary are alike? In what way? I'm not seeing that.

Take a good look at the pants.

Notice who seems to look most natural in that style.....

LOL. Well in truth, unless there are significant butt cracks or unnecessary underwear showing, or lack of necessary underwear, I don't really pay that much attention to what they're wearing.

The only significant similarities, of importance anyway, between the two that I see is that they are both serious establishment candidates. I like Kasich. He is a no nonsense and an intuitively solid guy. But this is the year for the outsiders, and he sure isn't that.

 

[Crixus]

I'll try and keep it short, but this is what a good presidential team could look like for me.

President, Ted Cruz. I can go look at his record since 2012, may not agree with all of it, but it's consistent.

Vice president, Whomever will carry out the policy of the president if something should happen. Scott Walker would be good enough.

Secretary of state, probably Donald Trump (won't happen) give him a year to put up or shut up.

Surgeon General, Ben Carson. But he would have to be able to talk about sex as well as Zika virus. He has a calming manner about him and I figure he could do good there.

All I got for now.

Walker's lack of a college degree is really problematic for a lot of folks. And he wasn't able to gain much traction and wasn't he the first to drop out of the primary process? I personally think he wouldn't be bad, but we need somebody to strengthen the ticket and I don't believe he would.

Somebody like Nikki Haley or Bobby Jindal or yes, Kasich, probably would generate more enthusiasm for Ted. But the path ahead is looking more favorable for Trump to get the requisite delegates. He is polling #1 in Indiana and California as of today.

I could live with Kasich. Hard guy to hate. But his knowledge of congress and how to move around would be valuable. Even Trump would be dumb not to tap into that knowledge and experience.

Do you mean Kasich as SecState? Or as President?

Kasich has his pros and cons, but I'm very unlikely to vote for him, partly because I doubt he'll be among the choices for President, and partly because I have problems with some of his key points, ones that matter to me. Those points (taken from here and considered only at the level presented there) are:

• Foreign Policy:
  • ISIS: "Wiping ISIS off the map requires a complex, collaborative strategy involving mutual defense action by NATO—as well as regional allies—in the wake of the attack on France, intensifying international intelligence cooperation, increasing support to the highly-effective Kurdish military, creating safe havens and no-fly zones, combating human trafficking in refugees, a NATO & regional coalition with ground troops, and more aggressively fighting the war of ideas to discredit ISIS."
    • Vacuous remark. I don't need him to tell me what's required, I need to hear what he'd do to achieve what's required and how he'd go about doing it. Just to illustrate why I find the statement vacuous let's look at two pieces of it:
      • "increasing support to the highly-effective Kurdish military" -- How? What kind of support -- ground troops, air support, leadership guidance, operational support, intelligence support, handouts of food, loans....some specifics on what he thinks will "do a the trick" or suffice, please? He wants to be President; he should have enough of an understanding of the topic/issue to have some sort of specific actions/tactics that he thinks will work to some degree or other. Did he so much as give one? No.
      • "more aggressively fighting the war of ideas to discredit ISIS" -- Okay...discredit ISIS with what audience? It's clearly not Americans and it's almost certainly not Jews either. Is the audience to be Afghans, Saudis, Muslims the world over, the Chinese, the Russians, Sunnis, Shites, impressionable Arab or Muslim males, impressionable Arab or Muslim females, etc.? Some of those groups? All of those groups? All of them at once, or different groups at different times, systematically and in something like a linear sequence?
  • Alliances: "There is strength in numbers and consensus, but our allies feel neglected and abused. We must rebuild these critical relationships in order to better advance our national interests the leadership that produces much-needed global stability. Among other actions, this includes standing by Israel—our strongest ally in the Middle East, supporting Ukraine in its challenges from Russia, standing by Egypt as it fights terrorist insurgencies from Sinai and Libya, supporting our Pacific allies in the face of Chinese belligerence and supporting Israeli efforts defend itself and oppose Iranian-backed terrorism in the region.
    • Other than the Saudis, which of our allied governments has determined the U.S. had "neglected and abused" them?
      • The Saudis it'd seem, and why do they feel that way?
        • Because they risk having billions of dollars of their money frozen in U.S. banks and doled out to 9/11 survivors or families of survivors? (The integrity that accompanies the U.S. wanting reciprocal immunity for it's people and resources overseas is the only reason I think the Saudi government should remain immune from civil suits brought in U.S. courts.)
        • Because they want the U.S. to give equal priority to removing/toppling any and every Shiite leader and/or state and destroying ISIS, which, as an outgrowth of Al Qaeda is, frankly, is an organization that indirectly they caused in the first place.
      • Frankly, I think the Saudis ought to count their lucky stars that the U.S. government in any way at all still considers them somewhat of an ally, enough of one that the U.S. is bothering to try to reconcile and resolve the differences between them and us as nations.
  • Cyber Defense: "We must defend against cyber attacks on our government and businesses, as well as counter the online activities of jihadis and other opponents. We must work with our allies to identify sources of attack and develop a coordinated response to anyone that attacks the resources of our government and the private sector."
    • Does that man actually think the U.S. is not already doing that? We've been doing it since long before the Obama Administration. Cyber defence and hacking is a matter of "leapfrogging:"
      1. A finds a weakness and exploits it.
      2. B "closes the hole" and looks for weaknesses in A's software and hardware.
      3. B finds a weakness and exploits it.
      4. Repeat as needed...
      • It's an interminable "back and forth." There's nobody who doesn't try to anticipate weaknesses before deploying technology, but nobody is perfect. The reality of software is that with enough time and money, nearly anything can be done. The question isn't "can we do it?" It's "are we willing to pay for it?" It's purely a risk management matter.

Even as I do care about the several topics I noted above, more importantly than Mr. Kasich's specific remarks about them is the lack of rigor and specificity in the content itself. That dearth of detail leads me to believe the man doesn't have much of a full grasp of the subject matter. Compare and contrast that with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, or even with a host of sitting Senators and Representatives (either party) or Administration officials from Obama's or Bush's Presidencies, who not only make the kinds of very high level statements Mr. Kasich has, but also provide detailed (more detailed) information about how they'd address the issues/problems they identify. Both the Dem. candidates have done so in debate after debate. Heck, there are a handful of folks on USMB (again, spanning party affiliation) even who bother to delve into the details of a topic and gain an comprehensive understanding that allows them to more cogently and substantively discuss and propose ideas than has Mr. Kasich.

I'm good with Kasich being any place he can't write and execute policy. He is to much like Hillary for that. But Kasich would be a good VP choice especially for Trump.

Do you really think Kasich and Hillary are alike? In what way? I'm not seeing that.

Policy wise. The Medicare expansion, things like this. Thinking about it, I could deal with a Kasich as. President. He is a hard guy to hate in the way Trump, Cruz, Hillary and Bernie are. But he can tend liberal.

 

[Foxfyre]

Walker's lack of a college degree is really problematic for a lot of folks. And he wasn't able to gain much traction and wasn't he the first to drop out of the primary process? I personally think he wouldn't be bad, but we need somebody to strengthen the ticket and I don't believe he would.

Somebody like Nikki Haley or Bobby Jindal or yes, Kasich, probably would generate more enthusiasm for Ted. But the path ahead is looking more favorable for Trump to get the requisite delegates. He is polling #1 in Indiana and California as of today.

I could live with Kasich. Hard guy to hate. But his knowledge of congress and how to move around would be valuable. Even Trump would be dumb not to tap into that knowledge and experience.

Do you mean Kasich as SecState? Or as President?

Kasich has his pros and cons, but I'm very unlikely to vote for him, partly because I doubt he'll be among the choices for President, and partly because I have problems with some of his key points, ones that matter to me. Those points (taken from here and considered only at the level presented there) are:

• Foreign Policy:
  • ISIS: "Wiping ISIS off the map requires a complex, collaborative strategy involving mutual defense action by NATO—as well as regional allies—in the wake of the attack on France, intensifying international intelligence cooperation, increasing support to the highly-effective Kurdish military, creating safe havens and no-fly zones, combating human trafficking in refugees, a NATO & regional coalition with ground troops, and more aggressively fighting the war of ideas to discredit ISIS."
    • Vacuous remark. I don't need him to tell me what's required, I need to hear what he'd do to achieve what's required and how he'd go about doing it. Just to illustrate why I find the statement vacuous let's look at two pieces of it:
      • "increasing support to the highly-effective Kurdish military" -- How? What kind of support -- ground troops, air support, leadership guidance, operational support, intelligence support, handouts of food, loans....some specifics on what he thinks will "do a the trick" or suffice, please? He wants to be President; he should have enough of an understanding of the topic/issue to have some sort of specific actions/tactics that he thinks will work to some degree or other. Did he so much as give one? No.
      • "more aggressively fighting the war of ideas to discredit ISIS" -- Okay...discredit ISIS with what audience? It's clearly not Americans and it's almost certainly not Jews either. Is the audience to be Afghans, Saudis, Muslims the world over, the Chinese, the Russians, Sunnis, Shites, impressionable Arab or Muslim males, impressionable Arab or Muslim females, etc.? Some of those groups? All of those groups? All of them at once, or different groups at different times, systematically and in something like a linear sequence?
  • Alliances: "There is strength in numbers and consensus, but our allies feel neglected and abused. We must rebuild these critical relationships in order to better advance our national interests the leadership that produces much-needed global stability. Among other actions, this includes standing by Israel—our strongest ally in the Middle East, supporting Ukraine in its challenges from Russia, standing by Egypt as it fights terrorist insurgencies from Sinai and Libya, supporting our Pacific allies in the face of Chinese belligerence and supporting Israeli efforts defend itself and oppose Iranian-backed terrorism in the region.
    • Other than the Saudis, which of our allied governments has determined the U.S. had "neglected and abused" them?
      • The Saudis it'd seem, and why do they feel that way?
        • Because they risk having billions of dollars of their money frozen in U.S. banks and doled out to 9/11 survivors or families of survivors? (The integrity that accompanies the U.S. wanting reciprocal immunity for it's people and resources overseas is the only reason I think the Saudi government should remain immune from civil suits brought in U.S. courts.)
        • Because they want the U.S. to give equal priority to removing/toppling any and every Shiite leader and/or state and destroying ISIS, which, as an outgrowth of Al Qaeda is, frankly, is an organization that indirectly they caused in the first place.
      • Frankly, I think the Saudis ought to count their lucky stars that the U.S. government in any way at all still considers them somewhat of an ally, enough of one that the U.S. is bothering to try to reconcile and resolve the differences between them and us as nations.
  • Cyber Defense: "We must defend against cyber attacks on our government and businesses, as well as counter the online activities of jihadis and other opponents. We must work with our allies to identify sources of attack and develop a coordinated response to anyone that attacks the resources of our government and the private sector."
    • Does that man actually think the U.S. is not already doing that? We've been doing it since long before the Obama Administration. Cyber defence and hacking is a matter of "leapfrogging:"
      1. A finds a weakness and exploits it.
      2. B "closes the hole" and looks for weaknesses in A's software and hardware.
      3. B finds a weakness and exploits it.
      4. Repeat as needed...
      • It's an interminable "back and forth." There's nobody who doesn't try to anticipate weaknesses before deploying technology, but nobody is perfect. The reality of software is that with enough time and money, nearly anything can be done. The question isn't "can we do it?" It's "are we willing to pay for it?" It's purely a risk management matter.

Even as I do care about the several topics I noted above, more importantly than Mr. Kasich's specific remarks about them is the lack of rigor and specificity in the content itself. That dearth of detail leads me to believe the man doesn't have much of a full grasp of the subject matter. Compare and contrast that with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, or even with a host of sitting Senators and Representatives (either party) or Administration officials from Obama's or Bush's Presidencies, who not only make the kinds of very high level statements Mr. Kasich has, but also provide detailed (more detailed) information about how they'd address the issues/problems they identify. Both the Dem. candidates have done so in debate after debate. Heck, there are a handful of folks on USMB (again, spanning party affiliation) even who bother to delve into the details of a topic and gain an comprehensive understanding that allows them to more cogently and substantively discuss and propose ideas than has Mr. Kasich.

I'm good with Kasich being any place he can't write and execute policy. He is to much like Hillary for that. But Kasich would be a good VP choice especially for Trump.

Do you really think Kasich and Hillary are alike? In what way? I'm not seeing that.

Policy wise. The Medicare expansion, things like this. Thinking about it, I could deal with a Kasich as. President. He is a hard guy to hate in the way Trump, Cruz, Hillary and Bernie are. But he can tend liberal.

Yes, I agree. Except for Lindsay Graham, Kasich is probably the most liberal of the entire GOP field that started out and he is among the strong establishment group. I honestly think that is why he hasn't gained much traction. It isn't that people don't like him. Everybody does. But he is seen as one who will just maintain the status quo. And that is what those supporting Sanders, Trump, and Cruz don't want.

 

[Crixus]

I could live with Kasich. Hard guy to hate. But his knowledge of congress and how to move around would be valuable. Even Trump would be dumb not to tap into that knowledge and experience.

Do you mean Kasich as SecState? Or as President?

Kasich has his pros and cons, but I'm very unlikely to vote for him, partly because I doubt he'll be among the choices for President, and partly because I have problems with some of his key points, ones that matter to me. Those points (taken from here and considered only at the level presented there) are:

• Foreign Policy:
  • ISIS: "Wiping ISIS off the map requires a complex, collaborative strategy involving mutual defense action by NATO—as well as regional allies—in the wake of the attack on France, intensifying international intelligence cooperation, increasing support to the highly-effective Kurdish military, creating safe havens and no-fly zones, combating human trafficking in refugees, a NATO & regional coalition with ground troops, and more aggressively fighting the war of ideas to discredit ISIS."
    • Vacuous remark. I don't need him to tell me what's required, I need to hear what he'd do to achieve what's required and how he'd go about doing it. Just to illustrate why I find the statement vacuous let's look at two pieces of it:
      • "increasing support to the highly-effective Kurdish military" -- How? What kind of support -- ground troops, air support, leadership guidance, operational support, intelligence support, handouts of food, loans....some specifics on what he thinks will "do a the trick" or suffice, please? He wants to be President; he should have enough of an understanding of the topic/issue to have some sort of specific actions/tactics that he thinks will work to some degree or other. Did he so much as give one? No.
      • "more aggressively fighting the war of ideas to discredit ISIS" -- Okay...discredit ISIS with what audience? It's clearly not Americans and it's almost certainly not Jews either. Is the audience to be Afghans, Saudis, Muslims the world over, the Chinese, the Russians, Sunnis, Shites, impressionable Arab or Muslim males, impressionable Arab or Muslim females, etc.? Some of those groups? All of those groups? All of them at once, or different groups at different times, systematically and in something like a linear sequence?
  • Alliances: "There is strength in numbers and consensus, but our allies feel neglected and abused. We must rebuild these critical relationships in order to better advance our national interests the leadership that produces much-needed global stability. Among other actions, this includes standing by Israel—our strongest ally in the Middle East, supporting Ukraine in its challenges from Russia, standing by Egypt as it fights terrorist insurgencies from Sinai and Libya, supporting our Pacific allies in the face of Chinese belligerence and supporting Israeli efforts defend itself and oppose Iranian-backed terrorism in the region.
    • Other than the Saudis, which of our allied governments has determined the U.S. had "neglected and abused" them?
      • The Saudis it'd seem, and why do they feel that way?
        • Because they risk having billions of dollars of their money frozen in U.S. banks and doled out to 9/11 survivors or families of survivors? (The integrity that accompanies the U.S. wanting reciprocal immunity for it's people and resources overseas is the only reason I think the Saudi government should remain immune from civil suits brought in U.S. courts.)
        • Because they want the U.S. to give equal priority to removing/toppling any and every Shiite leader and/or state and destroying ISIS, which, as an outgrowth of Al Qaeda is, frankly, is an organization that indirectly they caused in the first place.
      • Frankly, I think the Saudis ought to count their lucky stars that the U.S. government in any way at all still considers them somewhat of an ally, enough of one that the U.S. is bothering to try to reconcile and resolve the differences between them and us as nations.
  • Cyber Defense: "We must defend against cyber attacks on our government and businesses, as well as counter the online activities of jihadis and other opponents. We must work with our allies to identify sources of attack and develop a coordinated response to anyone that attacks the resources of our government and the private sector."
    • Does that man actually think the U.S. is not already doing that? We've been doing it since long before the Obama Administration. Cyber defence and hacking is a matter of "leapfrogging:"
      1. A finds a weakness and exploits it.
      2. B "closes the hole" and looks for weaknesses in A's software and hardware.
      3. B finds a weakness and exploits it.
      4. Repeat as needed...
      • It's an interminable "back and forth." There's nobody who doesn't try to anticipate weaknesses before deploying technology, but nobody is perfect. The reality of software is that with enough time and money, nearly anything can be done. The question isn't "can we do it?" It's "are we willing to pay for it?" It's purely a risk management matter.

Even as I do care about the several topics I noted above, more importantly than Mr. Kasich's specific remarks about them is the lack of rigor and specificity in the content itself. That dearth of detail leads me to believe the man doesn't have much of a full grasp of the subject matter. Compare and contrast that with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, or even with a host of sitting Senators and Representatives (either party) or Administration officials from Obama's or Bush's Presidencies, who not only make the kinds of very high level statements Mr. Kasich has, but also provide detailed (more detailed) information about how they'd address the issues/problems they identify. Both the Dem. candidates have done so in debate after debate. Heck, there are a handful of folks on USMB (again, spanning party affiliation) even who bother to delve into the details of a topic and gain an comprehensive understanding that allows them to more cogently and substantively discuss and propose ideas than has Mr. Kasich.

I'm good with Kasich being any place he can't write and execute policy. He is to much like Hillary for that. But Kasich would be a good VP choice especially for Trump.

Do you really think Kasich and Hillary are alike? In what way? I'm not seeing that.

Policy wise. The Medicare expansion, things like this. Thinking about it, I could deal with a Kasich as. President. He is a hard guy to hate in the way Trump, Cruz, Hillary and Bernie are. But he can tend liberal.

Yes, I agree. Except for Lindsay Graham, Kasich is probably the most liberal of the entire GOP field that started out and he is among the strong establishment group. I honestly think that is why he hasn't gained much traction. It isn't that people don't like him. Everybody does. But he is seen as one who will just maintain the status quo. And that is what those supporting Sanders, Trump, and Cruz don't want.

And it's a shame to because there is a wealth of knowledge there that any of these candidates could exploit, but I feel there will be to much animosity between these guys after 2016. Everyone says America will change this year. Honestly it already has. Hate is campaign strategy now.

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you mean Kasich as SecState? Or as President?

Kasich has his pros and cons, but I'm very unlikely to vote for him, partly because I doubt he'll be among the choices for President, and partly because I have problems with some of his key points, ones that matter to me. Those points (taken from here and considered only at the level presented there) are:

• Foreign Policy:
  • ISIS: "Wiping ISIS off the map requires a complex, collaborative strategy involving mutual defense action by NATO—as well as regional allies—in the wake of the attack on France, intensifying international intelligence cooperation, increasing support to the highly-effective Kurdish military, creating safe havens and no-fly zones, combating human trafficking in refugees, a NATO & regional coalition with ground troops, and more aggressively fighting the war of ideas to discredit ISIS."
    • Vacuous remark. I don't need him to tell me what's required, I need to hear what he'd do to achieve what's required and how he'd go about doing it. Just to illustrate why I find the statement vacuous let's look at two pieces of it:
      • "increasing support to the highly-effective Kurdish military" -- How? What kind of support -- ground troops, air support, leadership guidance, operational support, intelligence support, handouts of food, loans....some specifics on what he thinks will "do a the trick" or suffice, please? He wants to be President; he should have enough of an understanding of the topic/issue to have some sort of specific actions/tactics that he thinks will work to some degree or other. Did he so much as give one? No.
      • "more aggressively fighting the war of ideas to discredit ISIS" -- Okay...discredit ISIS with what audience? It's clearly not Americans and it's almost certainly not Jews either. Is the audience to be Afghans, Saudis, Muslims the world over, the Chinese, the Russians, Sunnis, Shites, impressionable Arab or Muslim males, impressionable Arab or Muslim females, etc.? Some of those groups? All of those groups? All of them at once, or different groups at different times, systematically and in something like a linear sequence?
  • Alliances: "There is strength in numbers and consensus, but our allies feel neglected and abused. We must rebuild these critical relationships in order to better advance our national interests the leadership that produces much-needed global stability. Among other actions, this includes standing by Israel—our strongest ally in the Middle East, supporting Ukraine in its challenges from Russia, standing by Egypt as it fights terrorist insurgencies from Sinai and Libya, supporting our Pacific allies in the face of Chinese belligerence and supporting Israeli efforts defend itself and oppose Iranian-backed terrorism in the region.
    • Other than the Saudis, which of our allied governments has determined the U.S. had "neglected and abused" them?
      • The Saudis it'd seem, and why do they feel that way?
        • Because they risk having billions of dollars of their money frozen in U.S. banks and doled out to 9/11 survivors or families of survivors? (The integrity that accompanies the U.S. wanting reciprocal immunity for it's people and resources overseas is the only reason I think the Saudi government should remain immune from civil suits brought in U.S. courts.)
        • Because they want the U.S. to give equal priority to removing/toppling any and every Shiite leader and/or state and destroying ISIS, which, as an outgrowth of Al Qaeda is, frankly, is an organization that indirectly they caused in the first place.
      • Frankly, I think the Saudis ought to count their lucky stars that the U.S. government in any way at all still considers them somewhat of an ally, enough of one that the U.S. is bothering to try to reconcile and resolve the differences between them and us as nations.
  • Cyber Defense: "We must defend against cyber attacks on our government and businesses, as well as counter the online activities of jihadis and other opponents. We must work with our allies to identify sources of attack and develop a coordinated response to anyone that attacks the resources of our government and the private sector."
    • Does that man actually think the U.S. is not already doing that? We've been doing it since long before the Obama Administration. Cyber defence and hacking is a matter of "leapfrogging:"
      1. A finds a weakness and exploits it.
      2. B "closes the hole" and looks for weaknesses in A's software and hardware.
      3. B finds a weakness and exploits it.
      4. Repeat as needed...
      • It's an interminable "back and forth." There's nobody who doesn't try to anticipate weaknesses before deploying technology, but nobody is perfect. The reality of software is that with enough time and money, nearly anything can be done. The question isn't "can we do it?" It's "are we willing to pay for it?" It's purely a risk management matter.

Even as I do care about the several topics I noted above, more importantly than Mr. Kasich's specific remarks about them is the lack of rigor and specificity in the content itself. That dearth of detail leads me to believe the man doesn't have much of a full grasp of the subject matter. Compare and contrast that with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, or even with a host of sitting Senators and Representatives (either party) or Administration officials from Obama's or Bush's Presidencies, who not only make the kinds of very high level statements Mr. Kasich has, but also provide detailed (more detailed) information about how they'd address the issues/problems they identify. Both the Dem. candidates have done so in debate after debate. Heck, there are a handful of folks on USMB (again, spanning party affiliation) even who bother to delve into the details of a topic and gain an comprehensive understanding that allows them to more cogently and substantively discuss and propose ideas than has Mr. Kasich.

I'm good with Kasich being any place he can't write and execute policy. He is to much like Hillary for that. But Kasich would be a good VP choice especially for Trump.

Do you really think Kasich and Hillary are alike? In what way? I'm not seeing that.

Policy wise. The Medicare expansion, things like this. Thinking about it, I could deal with a Kasich as. President. He is a hard guy to hate in the way Trump, Cruz, Hillary and Bernie are. But he can tend liberal.

Yes, I agree. Except for Lindsay Graham, Kasich is probably the most liberal of the entire GOP field that started out and he is among the strong establishment group. I honestly think that is why he hasn't gained much traction. It isn't that people don't like him. Everybody does. But he is seen as one who will just maintain the status quo. And that is what those supporting Sanders, Trump, and Cruz don't want.

And it's a shame to because there is a wealth of knowledge there that any of these candidates could exploit, but I feel there will be to much animosity between these guys after 2016. Everyone says America will change this year. Honestly it already has. Hate is campaign strategy now.

Hate of anybody who thinks differently or who won't toe the establishment line whether it is politics or global warming or political correctness or whatever the cultural 'religion' is in any particular season. And none of that was Sanders, Trumps, or Cruz's doing.

But it isn't a shame that people are finally waking up to the fact that it really doesn't make all that much difference who they elect among the establishment candidates. Nothing much will change. Those in government whether elected, appointed, or hired bureaucrats will continue to use the government for their own personal benefit and throw the people just enough bones to keep them complacent.

IMO, that is why those already there are working so hard to see that a true reformer like Trump or Cruz or Sanders is not elected to the White House. The GOP would like to retain their majority status because of the extra power and benefits that come with controlling the various congressional committees. But otherwise they don't really care if Hillary is elected as they know their personal situations will not change all that much.

 

[Crixus]

So very true. And we are willing to sift through the gut pile and pick the bones we are given. It saddens me. Years ago when I was about 16 I had an opportunity to go to the Phillipines to work with my step father. I was a rock star for the simple fact I was an American. Way to much adoration for a teen to handle or deserve. Now? We are disdained, laughed at and scorned. I so hope we can get over it and be like that again.

 

[Trump.Stamped]

At this point Trump. I would take him in a heartbeat over Bernie or Hillary. I can't stand Cruz or Kasich. Rubio was OK at first, then turned into a whiny little beyatch. Initially I loved Ben Carson, but as time went on it was very clear that 1) He was in way over his head 2) He did not have the disposition to be President.

Overall I'm not sure how much it matters. The only reason I will vote Trump is he will throw some chaos into the system, which is corrupt to the core in both parties.

The only hope we have is to burn both parties to the ground and start over, but I'm not sure the will of the American people is strong enough to make that happen.

 

[Foxfyre]

At this point Trump. I would take him in a heartbeat over Bernie or Hillary. I can't stand Cruz or Kasich. Rubio was OK at first, then turned into a whiny little beyatch. Initially I loved Ben Carson, but as time went on it was very clear that 1) He was in way over his head 2) He did not have the disposition to be President.

Overall I'm not sure how much it matters. The only reason I will vote Trump is he will throw some chaos into the system, which is corrupt to the core in both parties.

The only hope we have is to burn both parties to the ground and start over, but I'm not sure the will of the American people is strong enough to make that happen.

In all honesty, I am intrigued by a Donald Trump in the White House. Somebody who is beholden to nobody, who has no allegiance to a political party and therefore is not controlled by one, somebody who doesn't give a damn about how it has always been done or what is politically correct or how it plays in Peoria. Somebody who is not an ideologue or committed to some kind of agenda. Somebody with a track record for problem solving and getting things done. Somebody who might actually fix some of the stuff that is broken and actually get the train back on the tracks where it is derailed.

He has not accomplished what he has accomplished by failing to learn from his mistakes and occasional failures. He has surely enjoyed the successes he has enjoyed by picking good, competent people and learning what he needs to learn to address whatever problems he is facing at any given time.

And somebody with a colossal ego who will want to succeed and achieve and impress us all--not just the political elite--with success.

And if he accomplishes none of that, I just don't get the feeling he is a bad guy who will make things worse than they already are. He will make mistakes and get some things wrong, but we have yet to elect a saint or perfect person, and his family and friends vouch for his character as an honorable man.

So we'll see.

 

[Trump.Stamped]

At this point Trump. I would take him in a heartbeat over Bernie or Hillary. I can't stand Cruz or Kasich. Rubio was OK at first, then turned into a whiny little beyatch. Initially I loved Ben Carson, but as time went on it was very clear that 1) He was in way over his head 2) He did not have the disposition to be President.

Overall I'm not sure how much it matters. The only reason I will vote Trump is he will throw some chaos into the system, which is corrupt to the core in both parties.

The only hope we have is to burn both parties to the ground and start over, but I'm not sure the will of the American people is strong enough to make that happen.

In all honesty, I am intrigued by a Donald Trump in the White House. Somebody who is beholden to nobody, who has no allegiance to a political party and therefore is not controlled by one, somebody who doesn't give a damn about how it has always been done or what is politically correct or how it plays in Peoria. Somebody who is not an ideologue or committed to some kind of agenda. Somebody with a track record for problem solving and getting things done. Somebody who might actually fix some of the stuff that is broken and actually get the train back on the tracks where it is derailed.

He has not accomplished what he has accomplished by failing to learn from his mistakes and occasional failures. He has surely enjoyed the successes he has enjoyed by picking good, competent people and learning what he needs to learn to address whatever problems he is facing at any given time.

And somebody with a colossal ego who will want to succeed and achieve and impress us all--not just the political elite--with success.

And if he accomplishes none of that, I just don't get the feeling he is a bad guy who will make things worse than they already are. He will make mistakes and get some things wrong, but we have yet to elect a saint or perfect person, and his family and friends vouch for his character as an honorable man.

So we'll see.

He is the only one I can see actually getting some things done, like getting rid of all the useless czars, moving toward a balanced budget, fixing the border, and fixing the VA. If either a D or an R besides Trump gets in, nothing will happen.

 

[Foxfyre]

At this point Trump. I would take him in a heartbeat over Bernie or Hillary. I can't stand Cruz or Kasich. Rubio was OK at first, then turned into a whiny little beyatch. Initially I loved Ben Carson, but as time went on it was very clear that 1) He was in way over his head 2) He did not have the disposition to be President.

Overall I'm not sure how much it matters. The only reason I will vote Trump is he will throw some chaos into the system, which is corrupt to the core in both parties.

The only hope we have is to burn both parties to the ground and start over, but I'm not sure the will of the American people is strong enough to make that happen.

In all honesty, I am intrigued by a Donald Trump in the White House. Somebody who is beholden to nobody, who has no allegiance to a political party and therefore is not controlled by one, somebody who doesn't give a damn about how it has always been done or what is politically correct or how it plays in Peoria. Somebody who is not an ideologue or committed to some kind of agenda. Somebody with a track record for problem solving and getting things done. Somebody who might actually fix some of the stuff that is broken and actually get the train back on the tracks where it is derailed.

He has not accomplished what he has accomplished by failing to learn from his mistakes and occasional failures. He has surely enjoyed the successes he has enjoyed by picking good, competent people and learning what he needs to learn to address whatever problems he is facing at any given time.

And somebody with a colossal ego who will want to succeed and achieve and impress us all--not just the political elite--with success.

And if he accomplishes none of that, I just don't get the feeling he is a bad guy who will make things worse than they already are. He will make mistakes and get some things wrong, but we have yet to elect a saint or perfect person, and his family and friends vouch for his character as an honorable man.

So we'll see.

He is the only one I can see actually getting some things done, like getting rid of all the useless czars, moving toward a balanced budget, fixing the border, and fixing the VA. If either a D or an R besides Trump gets in, nothing will happen.

And in truth, the Congress may be so stubborn they won't let any significant improvement happen with Trump either. As previously posted, the GOP in government would rather have a Democrat who won't significantly rock the boat instead of a Republican who will. Vice versa the Democrats.

But again, Trump didn't get where he is without learning how to negotiate difficult deals. So again, maybe we'll find out.

 

[Crixus]

At this point Trump. I would take him in a heartbeat over Bernie or Hillary. I can't stand Cruz or Kasich. Rubio was OK at first, then turned into a whiny little beyatch. Initially I loved Ben Carson, but as time went on it was very clear that 1) He was in way over his head 2) He did not have the disposition to be President.

Overall I'm not sure how much it matters. The only reason I will vote Trump is he will throw some chaos into the system, which is corrupt to the core in both parties.

The only hope we have is to burn both parties to the ground and start over, but I'm not sure the will of the American people is strong enough to make that happen.

You won't throw chaos into the system. It will be the same as it has been. Trump even promised as much.