Also–lets not forget the massive cultural (NOT racial) and historical differences:
Japan was forcibly disarmed completely after WW2. Allied (US) forcibly disarmed the entire population.
Japan chose, voluntarily, to pursue a pacifist philosophy after WW2. This goes all the way from the government to raising kids.
The Japanese people are much more ok with central authority than we are. Their entire history has been non-democratic.
Japan is tiny. Very tiny. And it has a different outlook on privacy laws than we do.
Combine gun laws with a 1000 year history or follow-the-leader, and a pacifist philosophy, and a small island, and lesa privacy, and forcible disarmament and they’ll have a good chance of working…but only because of the history they are put on top of.
Too bad that looks nothing like our history, pur values, or our personality.
I am very pro 2nd amendment. And raj should know you can’t just make random comparisons across nations willy nilly.
Except they actually choose people from the political sphere. Unless you consider 2/21 non politician cabinet members to be “most,” it’s just not correct. I’m sure G HW Bush would be amazed to hear that his 19/21 politician cabinet was actually from the private sector.
You can choose to believe that Trump is governing the way Republicans have in the past, but regardless of my feelings of how they performed, it seems to be a huge insult to past republicans.
Okay, I will choose to believe reality. Keep in mind I am talking about how he has governed so far. And it has been as any republican would have. One could easily see Rubio, Cruz and many of the other 16 republican candidates doing the following:
Appointing a Conservative to the SC
Attacking Isis and killing 16 of its leaders using bombs instead of troops.
Using Tomahawk missiles in Syria
Pushing for lower taxes and now wanting to cut entitlements.
Would either of the two candidates mentioned above (or most of the remaining 14 republican candidates) not do any of the four things that I originally listed?
Edit: Make a list of names and tell me who would not do those things and if not why not.
So appointing a conservative to SCOTUS is the definition of what makes someone governing like past republicans? If that’s the metric I guess Trump passes. That and following GW Bush’s tradition of “most” of his cabinet being non politicians.
The answer to this question is no. Personally I’m more concerned with whether or not those above candidates would have brought politicians to their cabinet instead of more people with no experience or whether or not they’d put our global presence in harms way by giving classified intel to an enemy state.
Then again, I guess firing the guy investigating your administration follows suit with the GOP alright, so maybe he really is a traditional republican.
I have come late to the economy growing at 3%, but presidents (& candidates) promising balanced budgets or national debt reduction through ‘all of the new business’ prognostications, should receive an ass whupping on national feed.
Damn it to holy hell. Cut spending already - like the rest of us do when there isn’t enough to do everything we hoped.
*of course realizing Congress actually makes that happen,
Using a MOAB and hellfire missiles is Republican only territory? And the 3rd thing being a wishlist with no accomplishment behind it? Not sure if either of those scream GOP.
You asked if the 2 candidates would not do any of those things? A yes answer would mean I think they wouldn’t do those things, whereas I think they would have? [quote=“zeb1, post:491, topic:229190”]
As I said there were plenty of past republican Presidents that brought in cabinet members from the world of business…want the list again?
[/quote]
Is the list where most of G HW Bush’s cabinet wasn’t a politician? The one with 19 politicians and 2 businessmen, 1 of whom resigned after fraud allegations? [quote=“zeb1, post:491, topic:229190”]
Unsubstantiated nonsense. By the way who classifies information? Stop reading the left’s talking points I think you are better than that.
[/quote]
I read it off of Trump’s twitter account. Seems like a weird place to stumble across the left’s talking points. [quote=“zeb1, post:491, topic:229190”]
You mean the guy who had the goods on Hillary and then after Bill Clinton mysteriously visits Janet Lynch the AG…NO CHARGES.
[/quote]
Which is why a republican controlled POTUS, republican controlled SCOTUS, and republican controlled Congress are looking into these issues right? Because they’re substantiated. If Bill Clinton made the charges go away, you’d think the Republicans would be using it to deflect from Trump’s random words of derp. Or how about using it to take down Hillary like scores of Republicans have been trying to do for years?
Seems weird to mention an issue that even Republicans in govt don’t thing happened after telling someone to not read the left’s talking points.
The sarcasm was because your point boils down to “Trump appointed a conservative to the SC so he’s governing as a Republican would.” To ignore the vast amount of things he’s done contrary to the Republican party and say he’s governing as a republican would is a huge insult to republicans.
Factor in that whole giving classified intel to Russia thing and I can’t think of many Republicans past and current that would be thrilled to have him associated with their party.
A lot of organizations use baseline budgeting. The problem is that a lot of organizations also focus on cost reductions to reduce their baseline to, at the very least, mitigate any inflationary impact.
Completely agree. That said, I did read an op-ed in the WSJ that, in a nutshell, basically argued the only way out of our current debt trajectory is sustained growth of 3% or more and that spending cuts alone won’t get it done. I’ll have to see if I can find it.
