As for the GOP being labeled the “stupid party” electorally, I’ve never heard of such phrase. If this is something that you have read recently please post the article I’d love to read it.
[/quote]
Not necessarily the stupid party, but close enough:
[/quote]
War On The Rocks is a great site, particularly on civil-military relations. How’d you happen to come across it?
The GOP has squandered its traditional foreign policy advantage, particularly its near monopoly on the role of American hard power. Thus far, no Republcan candidate appears to be capable of reversing the trend. If anything, the party is widening that disparity through its from the hip partisanship. It’s highly unlikely that such an environment will be conducive to a substantive policy debate.
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
If the Business of the United States is BUSINESS,
Then who better to be President of the United States than a Businessman ?
yeah, funky ass question…i know.[/quote]
I hate when people say that. In conversation coworkers always say “We should run the government like a business.” When I ask them what they mean, they can’t explain their premise.
I feel when most people say this they mean “we should balance the budget and not increase it every year just because we can steal more money from taxpayers.”
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
If the Business of the United States is BUSINESS,
Then who better to be President of the United States than a Businessman ?
yeah, funky ass question…i know.[/quote]
I hate when people say that. In conversation coworkers always say “We should run the government like a business.” When I ask them what they mean, they can’t explain their premise.
I feel when most people say this they mean “we should balance the budget and not increase it every year just because we can steal more money from taxpayers.”
[/quote]
My understanding of what people mean when they say “run it like a business” is hold the government accountable for what they say they will do and the results from their spending. A politician can throw money at a problem to show their success in handling the issue, but it doesn’t necessarily need to be spend intelligently or get results. As long as they spend money, they care and tried so A for effort. In the business world, if a department is spending a lot of money and not getting results, they get reassigned or fired.
As for the GOP being labeled the “stupid party” electorally, I’ve never heard of such phrase. If this is something that you have read recently please post the article I’d love to read it.[/quote]
The GOP has squandered its traditional foreign policy advantage, particularly its near monopoly on the role of American hard power. Thus far, no Republcan candidate appears to be capable of reversing the trend. If anything, the party is widening that disparity through its from the hip partisanship. It’s highly unlikely that such an environment will be conducive to a substantive policy debate.
[/quote]
Why does someone even have to bother to point out to you how very bad Barack Obama has been foreign policy wise?
Needless to say a 14 year old Boy Scout would have run world affairs better than that idiot. And no the GOP has not squandered anything regarding foreign policy.
And Treco is spot on. Fiorina is a non-starter. As a CEO she was a disaster. The day she resigned, HP stock jumped %7 adding $3B in market cap. HP rank and file openly celebrated, singing, “Ding Dong the Witch is Dead”.
[/quote]
Let me edit my comments by saying there is definitely a place in politics for Carly, just not the Presidency.
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
If the Business of the United States is BUSINESS,
Then who better to be President of the United States than a Businessman ?
yeah, funky ass question…i know.[/quote]
I hate when people say that. In conversation coworkers always say “We should run the government like a business.” When I ask them what they mean, they can’t explain their premise.
I feel when most people say this they mean “we should balance the budget and not increase it every year just because we can steal more money from taxpayers.”
[/quote]
My understanding of what people mean when they say “run it like a business” is hold the government accountable for what they say they will do and the results from their spending. A politician can throw money at a problem to show their success in handling the issue, but it doesn’t necessarily need to be spend intelligently or get results. As long as they spend money, they care and tried so A for effort. In the business world, if a department is spending a lot of money and not getting results, they get reassigned or fired.[/quote]
Exactly right. In government, no one loses their job, and the defunct system remains intact. Lobbyists keep their grip on everything, even if the everyone else is playing musical chairs.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
One more thing regarding Trump’s great wealth. He claims that each time he places the name “Trump” on a building, Golf course or other investment property that it raises the value of said property by 50-100 million dollars depending on where and what it is.
To this I say bunk. He is deluding himself (and others) into thinking that is the value of his name on any particular property. And he can include that in his net worth, which he has done. But, all it does is artificially inflate his net worth.
I am not claiming that Trump is not a very wealthy man. And if he wants to divest himself of some very major holdings he can run a strong third party candidacy. However, it is much more difficult than most think. In addition to that he would have to start that divesture in the very near future. He simply does not have 2-3 billion dollars in cash on hand. Granted, he could begin slowly as he won’t need the entire amount immediately.
I just don’t see him taking such a risk as his true net worth, taking away all of the tricks he used to inflate it, is no where near the 10 billion reported. As I said in the above post Forbes estimates his wealth to be 4 billion which is far more accurate in my estimation. If true that means that he would have to divest himself of 75% of his net worth.
Will a man who places such a high premium on net worth to the point of inflating it to make himself look even richer than he is sell property for less than it’s worth (needing money in a hurry) simply to throw it away on a third party candidacy that is doomed from the beginning?
I will be bold enough to predict that Trump will not run a third party candidacy. And as I said in my previous post the republicans will stroke his ego and send him on his way feeling more respected than when he began.[/quote]
Fox tried to KO Trump, and he threw it back in their faces. Republicans better figure out their tired, boring, boiler-plate bullshit because Trump is polling even better now. [/quote]
Trump will not be getting the GOP nomination. But, the GOP establishment better relax and let him run his course. The obvious FOX attack didn’t work and nothing is going to work regarding any effort to make him go away. He’s like a rain storm it eventually ends. Until it does just try to stay dry.
And in reality I think he’s helped the GOP candidates tremendously. Do you think 25 million people would have tuned into a debate this far from the election if Trump were not part of it? No way. The first GOP debate last season with Romney and company drew about 5 million viewers. So, each of our current contenders get exposure that they would not have had without Trump. When Trump finally blows himself up with more ego driven statements people will actually know who the other candidates are early on.
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
If the Business of the United States is BUSINESS,
Then who better to be President of the United States than a Businessman ?
yeah, funky ass question…i know.[/quote]
I hate when people say that. In conversation coworkers always say “We should run the government like a business.” When I ask them what they mean, they can’t explain their premise.
I feel when most people say this they mean “we should balance the budget and not increase it every year just because we can steal more money from taxpayers.”
[/quote]
My understanding of what people mean when they say “run it like a business” is hold the government accountable for what they say they will do and the results from their spending. A politician can throw money at a problem to show their success in handling the issue, but it doesn’t necessarily need to be spend intelligently or get results. As long as they spend money, they care and tried so A for effort. In the business world, if a department is spending a lot of money and not getting results, they get reassigned or fired.[/quote]
Absolutely, I’d agree. The only problem is we are supposed to be the employers doing the firing, and much of the population ignores that fact.
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
If the Business of the United States is BUSINESS,
Then who better to be President of the United States than a Businessman ?
yeah, funky ass question…i know.[/quote]
I hate when people say that. In conversation coworkers always say “We should run the government like a business.” When I ask them what they mean, they can’t explain their premise.
I feel when most people say this they mean “we should balance the budget and not increase it every year just because we can steal more money from taxpayers.”
[/quote]
My understanding of what people mean when they say “run it like a business” is hold the government accountable for what they say they will do and the results from their spending. A politician can throw money at a problem to show their success in handling the issue, but it doesn’t necessarily need to be spend intelligently or get results. As long as they spend money, they care and tried so A for effort. In the business world, if a department is spending a lot of money and not getting results, they get reassigned or fired.[/quote]
Absolutely, I’d agree. The only problem is we are supposed to be the employers doing the firing, and much of the population ignores that fact.
[/quote]
Not sure if they are ignoring it or operate under the assumption that they’re powerless to do anything about it (see Carly Fiorina’s comment about the false assumption of a “political/ruling class”)
As for the GOP being labeled the “stupid party” electorally, I’ve never heard of such phrase. If this is something that you have read recently please post the article I’d love to read it.[/quote]
The GOP has squandered its traditional foreign policy advantage, particularly its near monopoly on the role of American hard power. Thus far, no Republcan candidate appears to be capable of reversing the trend. If anything, the party is widening that disparity through its from the hip partisanship. It’s highly unlikely that such an environment will be conducive to a substantive policy debate.
[/quote]
Why does someone even have to bother to point out to you how very bad Barack Obama has been foreign policy wise?
Needless to say a 14 year old Boy Scout would have run world affairs better than that idiot. And no the GOP has not squandered anything regarding foreign policy.
(eye roll)
[/quote]
Yet, he soundly beat out Romney in the last election cycle on that very issue. The Pew Research Center’s last preelection poll, for example, found that more voters trusted Obama than Romney on foreign affairs, by 50 percent to 42 percent, and CBS/New York Times and NBC/Wall Street Journal surveys showed similar figures. Tracking polls suggested that the foreign policy debate helped halt whatever momentum Romney had.
Foreign policy is like baseball; if you bat .300, you go to the hall of fame. Given that we live in the world as it is and not the world as it ought to be, President Obama has done an admirable job in the foreign policy realm given the domestic and international milieu that he entered in 2008. Were there mistakes along the line? Of course, but we have the benefit of hindsight.
Insults don’t make an argument, nor does drowning out the positions of others by the sheer volume of your voice. Any metric that is devoid of any cogent analytical frameworks (yours) is also useless. You can’t levy criticisms when you don’t understand the rudimentary basics of a topic. There are many people around here (as around anywhere) without basic knowledge of the general workings and specific details of international affairs. You’ve made, over the course of several threads, a series of claims that plainly evidence my analysis.
Through their simplistic and from the hip partisanship, the current crop of GOP candidates are already doing damage to an already tarnished foreign policy brand. If you believe anyone thus far can gold a candle to the likes of Eisenhower, Reagan, or H.W. Bush, than you’re delusional. It’s going to be a tough slog for whoever the nominee is against Clinton’s rich experience and competency in foreign affairs. Marco Rubio is probably the only one who has a chance.
As for the GOP being labeled the “stupid party” electorally, I’ve never heard of such phrase. If this is something that you have read recently please post the article I’d love to read it.[/quote]
The GOP has squandered its traditional foreign policy advantage, particularly its near monopoly on the role of American hard power. Thus far, no Republcan candidate appears to be capable of reversing the trend. If anything, the party is widening that disparity through its from the hip partisanship. It’s highly unlikely that such an environment will be conducive to a substantive policy debate.
[/quote]
Why does someone even have to bother to point out to you how very bad Barack Obama has been foreign policy wise?
Needless to say a 14 year old Boy Scout would have run world affairs better than that idiot. And no the GOP has not squandered anything regarding foreign policy.
(eye roll)
[/quote]
Yet, he soundly beat out Romney in the last election cycle on that very issue. The Pew Research Center’s last preelection poll, for example, found that more voters trusted Obama than Romney on foreign affairs, by 50 percent to 42 percent, and CBS/New York Times and NBC/Wall Street Journal surveys showed similar figures. Tracking polls suggested that the foreign policy debate helped halt whatever momentum Romney had.
Foreign policy is like baseball; if you bat .300, you go to the hall of fame. Given that we live in the world as it is and not the world as it ought to be, President Obama has done an admirable job in the foreign policy realm given the domestic and international milieu that he entered in 2008. Were there mistakes along the line? Of course, but we have the benefit of hindsight.
Insults don’t make an argument, nor does drowning out the positions of others by the sheer volume of your voice. Any metric that is devoid of any cogent analytical frameworks (yours) is also useless. You can’t levy criticisms when you don’t understand the rudimentary basics of a topic. There are many people around here (as around anywhere) without basic knowledge of the general workings and specific details of international affairs. You’ve made, over the course of several threads, a series of claims that plainly evidence my analysis.
Through their simplistic and from the hip partisanship, the current crop of GOP candidates are already doing damage to an already tarnished foreign policy brand. If you believe anyone thus far can gold a candle to the likes of Eisenhower, Reagan, or H.W. Bush, than you’re delusional. It’s going to be a tough slog for whoever the nominee is against Clinton’s rich experience and competency in foreign affairs. Marco Rubio is probably the only one who has a chance.
[/quote]
The poll you referenced was taken on Dec 27, 2012, a much different time than today.
As of right now Obama is underwater in 4 polls on foreign policy and their average (Fox News, Pew Research, Quinnipiac, The Economist/Yougov, and the Real Clear Politics average of those 4 polls).
As for the GOP being labeled the “stupid party” electorally, I’ve never heard of such phrase. If this is something that you have read recently please post the article I’d love to read it.[/quote]
The GOP has squandered its traditional foreign policy advantage, particularly its near monopoly on the role of American hard power. Thus far, no Republcan candidate appears to be capable of reversing the trend. If anything, the party is widening that disparity through its from the hip partisanship. It’s highly unlikely that such an environment will be conducive to a substantive policy debate.
[/quote]
Why does someone even have to bother to point out to you how very bad Barack Obama has been foreign policy wise?
Needless to say a 14 year old Boy Scout would have run world affairs better than that idiot. And no the GOP has not squandered anything regarding foreign policy.
(eye roll)
[/quote]
Yet, he soundly beat out Romney in the last election cycle on that very issue. The Pew Research Center’s last preelection poll, for example, found that more voters trusted Obama than Romney on foreign affairs, by 50 percent to 42 percent, and CBS/New York Times and NBC/Wall Street Journal surveys showed similar figures. Tracking polls suggested that the foreign policy debate helped halt whatever momentum Romney had.
Foreign policy is like baseball; if you bat .300, you go to the hall of fame. Given that we live in the world as it is and not the world as it ought to be, President Obama has done an admirable job in the foreign policy realm given the domestic and international milieu that he entered in 2008. Were there mistakes along the line? Of course, but we have the benefit of hindsight.
Insults don’t make an argument, nor does drowning out the positions of others by the sheer volume of your voice. Any metric that is devoid of any cogent analytical frameworks (yours) is also useless. You can’t levy criticisms when you don’t understand the rudimentary basics of a topic. There are many people around here (as around anywhere) without basic knowledge of the general workings and specific details of international affairs. You’ve made, over the course of several threads, a series of claims that plainly evidence my analysis.
Through their simplistic and from the hip partisanship, the current crop of GOP candidates are already doing damage to an already tarnished foreign policy brand. If you believe anyone thus far can gold a candle to the likes of Eisenhower, Reagan, or H.W. Bush, than you’re delusional. It’s going to be a tough slog for whoever the nominee is against Clinton’s rich experience and competency in foreign affairs. Marco Rubio is probably the only one who has a chance.
[/quote]
The poll you referenced was taken on Dec 27, 2012, a much different time than today.
As of right now Obama is underwater in 4 polls on foreign policy and their average (Fox News, Pew Research, Quinnipiac, The Economist/Yougov, and the Real Clear Politics average of those 4 polls).
I was clearly referring to the last election cycle (Obama vis-a-vis Romney) and not present approval ratings of Obama. Most of the GOP candidates have thus far displayed nothing less than a noxious mix of belligerent posturing and stunning ignorance. The Republican foreign policy brand has been become tarnished and rife with partisanship. Candidates are coming to base their platforms not on cogent analytical frameworks, but to appeal to the lowest common denominator. That doesn’t make for good policy, and it gives HRC a decisive advantage in the discipline. The country needs a substantive debate between the GOP and Democratic candidate, not the ahistorical and nescient rhetoric presently being offered. Gone are the Eisenhowers, the Reagans, the H.W. Bushs. I hope for their return.
The GOP is in agreement with at least half of those polled, and possibly the majority of voters who disagree with Obama on the Iran deal. The people also were largely against Obama bombing Syria without Congressional approval.
Most importantly, Republicans ran against Obama’s policies in the last midterm elections and electorally tooled Obama. Even in a bluer than blue state like my own, Republicans won enough seats to undo the Democratic supermajority, and won 3 other gubernatorial elections in other states. In fact, Republicans own the House and Senate, the majority of governor seats, and most state legislatures…all while being noxious and belligerent.
This ^ is what happens when you live your life in books, and don’t take a peek at the real world once in awhile. Back to Hogwarts.
Yet, he soundly beat out Romney in the last election cycle on that very issue.[/quote]
You little knuckle head. That was something called a CAMPAIGN. Obama ran a better campaign, spent more money and painted Romney as an out of touch rich guy. Romney did not respond as he was busy fighting off a multitude of contenders (his mistake for certain). When the fight was over he had far less money. Hence the reason Obama not only was considered wiser on foreign affairs but also won the election.
By the way, just so you know, most sitting Presidents will score higher than their challengers on "who is better at foreign affairs. Something else you don’t know (among many things). If a sitting President actually loses that distinction they don’t have much of a chance of keeping their office. For example Jimmy Carter scored lower than Ronald Reagan on that very question. What happened to Carter? I know you were not born yet but go read a book about it.
Whahaha that was without a doubt the funniest comment that you have yet made. And you have made plenty of funny comments.
Obama’s foreign policy is a disaster. They hated us under Bush, I’ll give you that. But, at least they feared us. Under Obama they hate us and laugh at us all at the same time.
It was Obama who withdrew from Iraq too early to please the left wing loons (of which you are a part). Leaving a void and creating Isis and encouraging other terrorist groups. He’s alienated our best friend Israel. And now he wants to give Iran the bomb along with 150 billion dollars. One can only guess how Iran will use that money to harm Israel or the US. Obama is absolutely the worst modern day President he has no equals. He makes even Jimmy Carter look competent.
[quote]Through their simplistic and from the hip partisanship, the current crop of GOP candidates are already doing damage to an already tarnished foreign policy brand. If you believe anyone thus far can gold a candle to the likes of Eisenhower, Reagan, or H.W. Bush, than you’re delusional. It’s going to be a tough slog for whoever the nominee is against Clinton’s rich experience and competency in foreign affairs. Marco Rubio is probably the only one who has a chance.
[/quote]
You are the delusional one. No wait…I take that back. It’s your lack of experience and your extreme youth that make you look so very bad in discussions like this. Your professors have spoon fed you the left wing crap that you’re spewing on these threads. So, I don’t totally blame you…
History shows us that this crop of GOP candidates is the finest fielded in many years. I challenge you to name a better group and you can go back 40 years if you like (and don’t respond back until you’ve named a better group,or apologize either one). The number of Senators and Governors has never been greater. And we also have two people from the field of business and one doctor. And they are quite successful at what they do, unlike the inexperienced Obama who only served for two years as a Senator before he began running for President. One of the reasons that everyone is eating his lunch. Not only is he a left wing loon (like you) , but also naïve (like you). Hey no wonder you like him.
As for Hillary Clinton most cannot name even one accomplishment to her credit. “Her rich experience and competency in foreign affairs”? Ha ha really? Is that why she stated that the Benghazi embassy was attacked because of an online video? She new days before that was not the case–but she lied and said it anyway. Speaking of Benghazi she allowed an ambassador and 4 brave navy seals to go it alone. She could have called for bombers as an aircraft carrier was close by. The Jets could have been there in minutes but she told everyone to stand down! She was incompetent as Secretary of State. My gosh look at her email scandal. Was she trying to hide something by wiping her server clean, or is she just that incompetent?
Hillary Clinton HA HA…She will lose to almost any of the GOP candidates. Her negative Poll numbers seem to go up every time she opens he lying, obnoxious mouth. If you think the country is stupid enough to elect another Clinton you are sadly mistaken. By the way her husband who actually has a winning personality couldn’t even get 50% of the vote in two runs for the White House. What makes you think that Hillary can actually win. Most people know who she is and soundly reject her. Check out her negatives state by state. Do you understand how to read poll numbers? If so go take a look. She is going to lose the Presidency. And if the GOP has the right ticket it may even be by landslide proportions–Would you like to bet? I’ll take your lunch money junior–
You are going to be in for a very disappointing election night! It’s a republican year. Check your history books and tell me when the last time two democrats were elected back to back.
As for the GOP being labeled the “stupid party” electorally, I’ve never heard of such phrase. If this is something that you have read recently please post the article I’d love to read it.
[/quote]
Not necessarily the stupid party, but close enough:
[/quote]
War On The Rocks is a great site, particularly on civil-military relations. How’d you happen to come across it?
[/quote]
I don’t remember. I have been learning quite a bit from it though. One of my current favorite sites.
The best article on there was a longish one by Christine Fair on the problem of dealing with Pakistan. Getting insider looks on how government actually functions versus how it’s supposed to function is always insightful.
Good job sleeper cell trump on taking heat off Dems and putting it on Republicans. Awesome…
The interpretation of what Trump said is hilariously sad:
“Did Trump just threaten to physically fight @Blacklivematter protesters?” No fuck face, learn how to read. Jesus.
“Trump vows to beat up black live matter protesters…”
Very intellectually honest of you.
This circus is ridiculous. [/quote]
You know shit is getting good when politics is more entertaining than reality TV or soap operas. I am actually hoping some BLM clowns go on stage and try to take Trump’s mic, should he fend them off, it will only make him look even better as a candidate.
Good job sleeper cell trump on taking heat off Dems and putting it on Republicans. Awesome…
The interpretation of what Trump said is hilariously sad:
“Did Trump just threaten to physically fight @Blacklivematter protesters?” No fuck face, learn how to read. Jesus.
“Trump vows to beat up black live matter protesters…”
Very intellectually honest of you.
This circus is ridiculous. [/quote]
You know shit is getting good when politics is more entertaining than reality TV or soap operas. I am actually hoping some BLM clowns go on stage and try to take Trump’s mic, should he fend them off, it will only make him look even better as a candidate. [/quote]
I won’t lie, it would be interesting to see Ol Donald mix it up with the BLM folks.
