In NY Governor fuck head (Cuomo) has the “Start up New York” program. It was supposed to attract businesses from around the country to Upstate with special tax free zones for the first decade. It turns out are taxes are high enough to dissuade investment even if the first ten years are discounted. In three years the program has spent $53 million and created, I hope your ready for this, 76 jobs.
But don’t worry. When a government program fails the only way to fix it is with a government program.
I will see your Cuomo, and raise you a bald wizard.
In 2008, we voted and passed a High Speed Rail bill, according to the legislation, the train would cost $33 Billion. Upon further analysis (the truth), the cost soured to $98 Billion.
88 military leaders have officially endorsed Trump. All generals and admirals
Anti-Trumpers wept
Game Changer? No, the answer is no. I’m sure all of these men are worthy of respect, but the average voter has absolutely no clue who any of these people are.
Right or wrong, an endorsement from Kanye West would be more of a game changer than this.
I was saying this belief that Trump will start an international incident/war/sully relations with other countries is unfounded
Does 121 leaders against Trump make it founded?
Some are pro, others are anti. Neither is unfounded.
Are there even any military generals on this list? Every name I Googled is some political scientist with an overpriced college degree
It’s a grand mistake to assume political scientists don’t have a lot of utility or expertise in foreign affairs. Generals and they perform different tasks and are experts in complementary but different things. It’s like assuming the guy with the PhD coaching Team USA doesn’t know how to build muscle and only the big bull necked guy squatting 500 at your local gym knows anything. They approach the same topic from different angles and to ignore 1 is to be woefully unprepared.
It’s also a hideous mistake to assume a PhD is the same as a bachelor’s. Or that all PhD’s are equal. Or that…well you get the drift.
Never said there were. Their GOP National Security Leaders, from the title.
This is a good summary of the situation:
“Mr. Trump, the Republican nominee, is seeking to blunt an edge that Mrs. Clinton, a former secretary of state, has established either from retired military figures like Gen. John R. Allen, or from the tacit boost she could receive from Republican national security and foreign policy experts who have denounced Mr. Trump.”
Similar to how a general from your list agrees with Trump on birtherism:
“Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney of the Air Force, who is also listed on the letter and is a Fox News military analyst, has previously submitted court documents challenging President Obama’s eligibility to serve as president, accusing him of not having been born in the United States, an accusation Mr. Trump himself once raised.”
Does that make the list irrelevant? No. Does the list make people’s concerns about Trump’s foreign policy unfounded? No.
If you want to make the argument for why Trump’s position on NATO is good for world order, go right ahead.
How beneficial are the insights of someone with a PhD in political science in real world scenarios?
Your analogy compares life sciences in value with social science
WaPo 50 state survey. Interesting for a number of reasons, not the least of which is how favorably Johnson is polling.
Because 88 retired officers support him? That’s a bit of stretch. Did you ever stop to think maybe some or all of these men want war?
I don’t understand…
You just said you posted this as backing “…that Trump will start an international incident/war/sully relations with other countries is unfounded…”
The fact that 88 retired officers support Trump doesn’t make concerns about Trump’s foreign policy leading to “international incident/war/sully relations” unfounded.
We don’t even know what their motivations are for supporting Trump. None, some, many, or even all could actually be in favor of war.
So, no, their support does not eliminate or reduce the threat of Trump causing an “international incident/war/sully relations”
It’s been asserted by anti-Trumpers that he’ll destroy relations with other countries and make things markedly worse for America internationally based on absolutely nothing.
So I respond by posting 88 military generals back Trump for president, a group of people who have skin in the game and seen where the rubber meets the road.
Your argument of “we don’t know their motivations for supporting Trump” could be said about anyone endorsing anybody. Does that mean endorsements/oppositions of any kind are meaningless to you?
Texas as a toss up? I haven’t seen that from the polling. WaPo might be stretching a bit, but certainly interesting.
So you guys honestly believe the opinion of phDs who have never seen the field of battle have equal or maybe greater weight in knowledge about foreign wars than military generals?
had skin in the game.
Unless their motivations match the argument you’re making. In this case, they don’t, which is why your conclusion is off base. Even if they were, using the term “unfounded” means that these 88 people are the sole compass to all military matters and all other opinions are worthless. A dumb argument to make (which is why you’re failing at it).
So far your article talked about military funding, which is a very likely reason they want Trump (among many). He’ll give the people they like more money, and therefore job security. I didn’t see much (or anything really) about foreign nations and relationships other than the disclamer that they think he has the temperment for president… which is obviously a point that could easily be discredited.
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that the general’s motivations are not matching your conclusion.
I think both opinions need to be taken into account. I’m certainly not suprised the people in (or were in) the military want the candidate who will give more money to the military. In that case, the people outside of the military might be able to help make a more objective decision on who is best.
There are also military generals who side with Hillary… there are people for and against…
Primary voting in Texas
GOP 2.8MM, Dems 1.4MM
That poll seems unrealistic