Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Election 16: Donald Trumps wins Presidency. God Help us all!

88Comrade2000

By 88Comrade2000
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

JMS

JMS

Posted
Posted

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/harry-reid-mitt-romney-taxes-219780

Reid mocks Romney over Trump's taxes

Harry Reid spent months attacking Mitt Romney in 2012 for not releasing his tax returns. Now the Democratic leader is at it again, after Romney suggested this week there could be a "bombshell" in Donald Trump's tax returns.
An incredulous Reid mocked Romney's statements about Trump's taxes when the Nevadan was asked about them on Thursday.

"Ha, ha. (Romney) never gave us his tax returns. Who was the brainchild that got him to do that?" Reid said at a news conference."He gave us a summary. He never gave us his tax returns."
Romney's "bombshell" remark mirrored Reid's repeated claims four years ago that an anonymous source told him that Romney hadn't paid taxes for 10 years.
But could there be a bombshell in Trump's tax returns? Reid wouldn't say.
"All I know is, I can't imagine Romney having the gall coming out (and calling) for anybody's tax returns," Reid said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedskinsFan44

RedskinsFan44

Posted
Posted

Also Trumps lack of detail hardly sets him apart in this field.

 

A lack of detail would not set him apart.  Having no detail does.  Let's see:

 

Healthcare - He is going to provide Universal Healthcare by allowing the free market to provide it.

 

ISIS - He is going to destroy ISIS but he can't tell us how until he is in office.  You allude to him getting Saudi Arabia to put in ground forces.  I'm thinking the Saudi Arabians have heard some of the stuff he has said.

 

Immigration - Build a wall.  Mexico will pay for it because we run a trade deficit with them.  If they say they won't make it taller/ more expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkinsHokieFan

SkinsHokieFan

Posted
Posted

Sadly, if you put a gun to my head and made me pick between Trump/Cruz/Rubio, I pick Trump.

 

While the guy is a complete clown and has given a voice to the most hateful elements in American society, I don't think the guy truly believes what he is saying (hence why his positions change week to week)

 

Cruz and Rubio actually believe everything they are saying, which essentially means more carpet bombing of the ME, the utilization of a failed foreign policy (look at their FP advisors) and the expansion of the national security state domestically.

 

Meanwhile Trump just cares about deals and winning. The terrible by product is winning to him is consolidating the moron/hate vote in America

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkinsHokieFan

SkinsHokieFan

Posted
Posted

You'd vote for Trump over Hillary or Bernie, SHF? I thought it was the poor that typically voted against their best interests. 

 

I didn't say that did I? :) 

 

I said if I had to choose between Trump/Rubio/Cruz

 

If its Trump v Hillary, I'll hold my nose and vote for a D for the first time in my life 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkinsHokieFan

SkinsHokieFan

Posted
Posted

Has anyone seen who Rubio is getting FP advice from? The same asshats that got us into Iraq

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/marco-rubio-neocon-advisers-bush-council-foreign-relations

 

 
Marco Rubio Wants to Make Neocons Cool Again

All-but-announced presidential candidate Jeb Bush caused a stir recently when hecited his brother, former President George W. Bush, as a top policy adviser on the Middle East. But it's fellow Floridian Sen. Marco Rubio who has made a Bush-era neoconservative foreign policy a centerpiece of his bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

 

On Wednesday afternoon, Rubio will give his first major foreign policy speech as a presidential candidate at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, where hewill champion a neoconservative vision of the United States' role in the world.

"They're all hawkish," Christopher Preble of the libertarian Cato Institute toldMcClatchy recently, referring to the field of GOP presidential contenders. "Just not to the extent he is."

From his perch on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Rubio has embraced an interventionist foreign policy, spoken out against budget cuts for the military, and emerged recently as President Obama's chief adversary on normalizing relations with Cuba. Speaking at a conservative gathering in South Carolina last weekend, Rubio articulated a simplistic approach to fighting terrorists, quoting a line from the Liam Neeson action flick Taken: "We will look for you, we will find you, and we will kill you."

It's not surprising that Rubio might out-Bush Jeb Bush when it comes to foreign policy. Last year, the conservative National Review reported that Rubio was a popular presidential prospect among the Bush administration's neoconservative alumni. Meet some of the hawks and former Bush administration officials shaping Rubio's foreign policy views.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheGoodBits

TheGoodBits

Posted
Posted

Has anyone seen who Rubio is getting FP advice from? The same asshats that got us into Iraq

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/marco-rubio-neocon-advisers-bush-council-foreign-relations

Predicto in particular has been hammering on that (significant) point for awhile. Honestly not sure who is more dangerous from a foreign policy perspective, Trump or Rubio. And Cruz would be a disaster here at home, as far as things like basic functions of government go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted

 

Has anyone seen who Rubio is getting FP advice from? The same asshats that got us into Iraq

 

 

Yeah, this has been the argument from day one against Rubio around here.

 

Specifically Predicto has been going on about this a lot. But others as well.

 

He's essentially the establishment neocon and will be Bush #3I since Jeb can't win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkinsHokieFan

SkinsHokieFan

Posted
Posted

Predicto in particular has been hammering on that (significant) point for awhile. Honestly not sure who is more dangerous from a foreign policy perspective, Trump or Rubio. And Cruz would be a disaster here at home, as far as things like basic functions of government go.

 

I don't think Trump actually goes out and starts a war. I think he likes deals and negotiating too much to just start bombing away.

 

Rubio, being such an empty suit and puppet, would do what Bill Kristol says.

 

Cruz would do what Jesus says 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JMS

JMS

Posted
Posted

Predicto in particular has been hammering on that (significant) point for awhile. Honestly not sure who is more dangerous from a foreign policy perspective, Trump or Rubio. And Cruz would be a disaster here at home, as far as things like basic functions of government go.

Rubio and Cruz both are advised by Neocons. And both have declined to say Iraq was a mistake. They like Hillary Clinton have all advocated using military power as an instrument of foreign policy rather than as a final measure to secure our National Security interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JMS

JMS

Posted
Posted

Only if we question whether it was possible for a moderator to do a good job yesterday. (I didn't actually watch the debate except for one clip, but in that clip, he tried to restore order and was roundly ignored)

 

I do think you can tsk a parent whose child is having a tantrum in the mall for being a bad parent, but sometimes kids are going to go ballistic and there's not much the parent can do.

(1) why can't the monitor turn off the mic's of the folks who don't have the floor?

(2) I think Wolfe's version of the debate rules and the fact he was the only one trying to enforce the rules made CNN's enforcement seem especially lax last night.

(3) Also thought Rubio and Cruz were both taking a page out of Trumps playbook and interrupting him when he spoke as he constantly does to them. Thought they were very effective against Trump and rattled him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheGoodBits

TheGoodBits

Posted
Posted

I don't think Trump actually goes out and starts a war. I think he likes deals and negotiating too much to just start bombing away.

Rubio, being such an empty suit and puppet, would do what Bill Kristol says.

Cruz would do what Jesus says

With Trump, he's just a wild card. I don't know what he would do, because the man has no business being the leader of any level of government. Maybe he buddies up with Putin, backs Assad, and actually makes progress vs ISIS. Of course, he'd also destroy the Syrian rebels in the process, and that betrayal will certainly not help with the prospects of dealing with future radicals.

Don't know. I'm speculating. Point is that he's dangerous because nobody actually knows what he would do as President.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mistertim

mistertim

Posted
Posted

I don't think Trump actually goes out and starts a war. I think he likes deals and negotiating too much to just start bombing away.

 

Rubio, being such an empty suit and puppet, would do what Bill Kristol says.

 

Cruz would do what Jesus says 

I have to admit that there is a huge diversity in today's Republican party in the number of ways they can scare the **** out of me.

 

All three of these assclowns are scary as hell in their own unique ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted

? It's called a free market. Ever heard of that? The most efficient system for delivering goods to the population? We haven't used it since what the 1930's in this country for healthcare delivery as we have an anti trust in place which restricts insurance companies from competing across state boundaries.. ( The McCarran–Ferguson Act ). Trumps idea to repeal McCarran-Ferguson isn't a particularly novel approach. Many conservatives have suggested this as a first step to meaningful healthcare reform.

I don't think it goes far enough, but it's hardly a fringe idea.

 

It isn't a fringe idea, but it isn't a good one either.  

 

Real component costs in the health care system are going.  Per a person, we are using more prescription drugs.  We are using more of the more expensive drugs.  Costs of doctor visits are going up.

 

Given those things, there is very little insurance companies can do to control prices.  

 

Further, other state fragmented markets aren't having the same the problem.  My car insurance isn't going up faster than inflation.  That suggest that the issue isn't fragmentation of the market.  I'm pretty sure that studies show that comparing apples-to-apples the size of the state (the size of the market) doesn't matter.  I'm pretty sure for the most part that apples-to-apples health insurance costs in CA are not really more than DE, again suggesting the size of the market doesn't really matter.

 

So I'm pretty sure what he suggested last night isn't really going to control costs.  What it is going to do is allow insurance companies across the country to offer really bad plans in every state, which means you'll be able to buy a bad insurance plan cheaply, but it'll be a bad plan.

 

And this is where this is going to start to matter in the general election.  He's said he's for universal care, but that's not what he's described last night.

 

He's not for people dying in the street (and I think Cruz focused on the wrong thing last night, and should have just said, I don't want people dying in the street either, and diverted the conversation to everybody that isn't dying in the street).

 

But what is he going to do with non-immediately lethal pre-existing conditions?  

 

Is he going to make insurance companies cover them?

 

What about people that have large health care costs due to an expected bad illness?

 

When is he going to step in help those people?  After they've declared bankruptcy and have no shot at paying their health care bills?

 

What is going to do with people that don't buy any of these great insurance policies?

 

(And this is where things are hard for Cruz and Rubio because of the lack of details, but as he's forced to give more details, there will be more things that people don't like, and he'll lose support.  Cruz heard universal care before and thought government funded health care and everything that means and that's what Cruz is driving for.  He wants Trump to say the government is going to pay for healthcare, but than later in response to Rubio, Trump circled back around and called for private health insurance health care for most people.)

 

And so now the question/issue is are you going to force people to buy health care?

 

Is there going to be a tax if you don't buy one of these great plans?

 

(And then what happens to people that don't buy one of these great plans and then gets really sick?)

 

But they are so late to the game to making Trump reveal these details and their solutions are so badly flawed, I'm not sure it matters in the primary.  But it will in a general election.

 

Trump can't say he's for universal healthcare without also saying he's for forcing people to buy insurance.

 

If he's for forcing people to buy insurance, that starts to sound a lot like Obamacare.  If he doesn't though, healthy/young people won't buy and costs to the government will balloon.

 

And we'll see headlines about how Trump's plan is going to cost billions of extra dollars and Trump will be a liar because he said he's for universal care when he's not (which will blunt his attacks of calling other people a liar).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...