2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Irish Insanity]

I'm absolutely all in on one of these,... No italics or humor at all... I'll let you all take a wild guess.

I think we're in the same boat with it. 1 of those statements I support. The other I'm on the fence.

 

[ACamp1900]

I thunk we're in the same boat with it. 1 of those statements I support. The other I'm on the fence.

I'm pretty set, I'm not voting for either,... It won't matter at all bc Cali is going for the arch criminal with or without me... It is known...

 

[pkt77242]

So you were for Hillary before you were against Hillary? Brilliant!!!

It's funny how you find Hillary lacking, but you're planning to vote for her, for President.

I can find her lacking and still vote for her. On a scale of 1-10 she is a 4 for me, the problem is that Trump is a -2, so yes it is easy to vote for her even though I wish there was a better option (yes I have looked at Johnson and Stein and I find both rather lackluster as well). As South Park says sometimes you have to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich.

Good, except that it's not blind! I think that woman and her husband exemplify everything that is wrong in American government today. I think that electing her will simply guarantee a continuation of the absolutely shitty governance that we have had for a long time now.

I do agree that she is a status quo vote but I see it as better then nuke the world with Trump. To each their own.

No, I didn't. I questioned the assessment that Hillary's economic plan will create 10.4 million NET jobs. You threw out the Moody report, and told me that it WAS net jobs. I still question the prediction. There might be 10.4M new jobs, 4 years from now. But nowhere did it predict how many jobs will be lost, due to the tax increases on businesses. It did assess the likely job loss due to the hike in the minimum wage, but not once did it mention job losses due to higher taxes on businesses. Nor did it guesstimate how many jobs will be lost to her involvement with even more shitty trade deals like NAFTA and TPP. It might well end up being 10.4M net. But you sure as hell can't say that with any confidence, today.

1. Presidents have always been judged on how many jobs they create during their term (4 or 8 years). During her 4 years they are predicting 10.4 million net new jobs. That is how we have judged every President before (fairly or not), why would we change it now? Because you don't like her and don't want to give her the credit?

2. She isn't talking about raising taxes on business across the spectrum, she has looked at 2 areas, banks and oil companies, otherwise businesses are pretty much not going to see a change in tax structure (though she wants to change the % of foreign ownership required for a tax inversion from 20% to 50% but that doesn't change the actual rate).

3. Back to NAFTA and TPP. It is hard to comment on TPP since it hasn't happened but your analysis of NAFTA is at best unfair. Yes NAFTA cost us manufacturing jobs (though it did add jobs in other sectors) but the thing about that is that if NAFTA doesn't happen those jobs were leaving the U.S. anyways, probably not for Mexico (it most likely would have been China, though Vietnam, S. Korea and India are also possibilities) and it did hasten the loss by a few years but it didn't fundamentally change it. If you don't believe me, here is an article about it:
NAFTA, 20 Years Later: Do the Benefits Outweigh the Costs? - Knowledge@Wharton

Of course there was a loss of manufacturing jobs but the real problem is that we didn't do enough to help retrain those workers so that they could be competitive in the 21st century labor market. That is our real failure.

 

[NorthDakota]

Yessir. I also mentioned this in the thread a few nights ago, and the main reason I am in favor of a limited central government and states' rights.

Amen

 

[connor_in]

I'm pretty set, I'm not voting for either,... It won't matter at all bc Cali is going for the arch criminal with or without me... It is known...

 

[connor_in]

Remember what Obama said in 2008 about Bush’s ‘unpatriotic’ debt? How’s THIS for patriotism… – twitchy.com

 

[Shamrock Theories]

Remember what Obama said in 2008 about Bush’s ‘unpatriotic’ debt? How’s THIS for patriotism… – twitchy.com

First of all, that data is inaccurate. US debt in 2009 was already 14.5 trillion

Also of note, here are the 6 largest economies in the world, and their debt as a % of GDP

1. US: 95%
2. China: 26%
3. Japan: 174%
4. Germany: 69%
5. U.K.: 90%
6. France: 87%

Hmmm.

 

[kmoose]

I can find her lacking and still vote for her. On a scale of 1-10 she is a 4 for me, the problem is that Trump is a -2, so yes it is easy to vote for her even though I wish there was a better option (yes I have looked at Johnson and Stein and I find both rather lackluster as well). As South Park says sometimes you have to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich.


I do agree that she is a status quo vote but I see it as better then nuke the world with Trump. To each their own.

You don't HAVE to vote for one of the options that they gave you. Your vote is yours. You can write in Donald Duck if you want. A non-vote, or write-in vote, in the Presidential election is a message to the establishment that you are fed up with their "lesser of two evils" strategies. If 20 million people wrote in Chuck Norris, how many Independents do you think would get into the 2020 race? That's 20 millions votes that are certainly up for grabs. That would be pretty attractive to people from outside of the system who have the cache to mount a campaign.

1. Presidents have always been judged on how many jobs they create during their term (4 or 8 years). During her 4 years they are predicting 10.4 million net new jobs. That is how we have judged every President before (fairly or not), why would we change it now? Because you don't like her and don't want to give her the credit?

Presidents MIGHT get judged by how many jobs they create................... AFTER they create them. They don't get credit for shit they haven't done yet. Will Barack Obama be remembered for closing Guantanamo Bay? Is Bill Clinton remembered for Universal Healthcare? Is Bush I remembered for no new taxes? I hate the fucking witch, but that has nothing to do with not giving her credit. I'm not giving her credit for creating ANY jobs because she HASN'T CREATED ANY.

2. She isn't talking about raising taxes on business across the spectrum, she has looked at 2 areas, banks and oil companies, otherwise businesses are pretty much not going to see a change in tax structure (though she wants to change the % of foreign ownership required for a tax inversion from 20% to 50% but that doesn't change the actual rate).

Hillary Clinton is going to raise taxes on banks? Are you fucking kidding me? You know what? She might raise some taxes on banks. But given the amount of money she has taken from Investment Banks, I can almost guarantee you that she will make up for that by cutting some other tax(es) for them, so that their net increase is 0. And do you realize how many people the oil companies employ? From the people who operate and maintain their wells; to the people who work in the restaurants, hotels, shops, etc, in the areas around those wells; to the truck drivers who haul the oil and gas; to the helicopter pilots and mechanics of Columbia Helicopters, Inc. (Home | Columbia Helicopters) that move the equipment to help them find new wells; to the people who build, maintain, and service pipelines: The oil and gas industry employs, directly or indirectly, a shit-ton of people. If you think that raising taxes on them isn't going to cause significant job losses for some communities, then you need to turn South Park off and get out of the house once in a while.

3. Back to NAFTA and TPP. It is hard to comment on TPP since it hasn't happened but your analysis of NAFTA is at best unfair. Yes NAFTA cost us manufacturing jobs (though it did add jobs in other sectors) but the thing about that is that if NAFTA doesn't happen those jobs were leaving the U.S. anyways, probably not for Mexico (it most likely would have been China, though Vietnam, S. Korea and India are also possibilities) and it did hasten the loss by a few years but it didn't fundamentally change it. If you don't believe me, here is an article about it:
NAFTA, 20 Years Later: Do the Benefits Outweigh the Costs? - Knowledge@Wharton

To be honest, I really don't give a fuck what some overpaid, underexperienced Melissa Glick wannabe at Wharton has to say about NAFTA. I watched, firsthand, as family and friends lost their jobs at the Hoover Company (Hoover vacuums). Jobs that went straight to Juarez, Mexico. My dad was lucky enough to retire (35 years) before they shipped his job down there. Those jobs were not going to Asia, period. If not for NAFTA, some of those jobs would certainly have gone to Mexico anyway, but there would still be a Hoover Co. in North Canton, OH. By the way, this comes on the heels, kind of, of the steel industry decimating Stark County, OH by closing plants. For 40 years, politicians have been promising to bring industry back to the Rust Belt, and not following through on them. And it's not just there that it is happening. THAT is why voters are pissed off about the status quo, and are fed up with career politicians.

Of course there was a loss of manufacturing jobs but the real problem is that we didn't do enough to help retrain those workers so that they could be competitive in the 21st century labor market. That is our real failure.

I have an idea................ since our economy is going down the tubes, how about if we have the federal government pay for EVERYONE'S college? YEAH, that's the ticket! Let's spend another $62B+ that we don't have. That way, Susie can get her Lesbian Studies degree; then we can all pay for her social services when she finds that there are no jobs in that field, and that the only jobs she can find are minimum wage jobs. Because her college degree is worthless. After all, EVERYONE has one.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

If the electorate were NOT truly pissed off, we probably would have one or two GOOD choices...

One or two good choices?

An interesting way to phrase things.


I believe we have a good choice this fall. The differences are very clear.

Candidates, well that may be a different thing all together.

I am fascinated by this election, probably more than any I have voted in, and my first vote was in the Bicentennial election. Actually, this is probably a more interesting election than any since Goldwater and Johnson.

That was the last election I can think of with such stark contrasts, and clear cut options.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ExjDzDsgbww" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Of interest to me this year, and I have always and still strongly feel this way is a natural inclination to detest Hillary as a smarmy political beast. And it is more than her association with Slick Willie. I have heard educated people that believe she has had many people murdered, is totally in bed with large corporations, and so on. You all know the rumors and allegations.

As much as I have a visceral feeling that this needs to be so, I have to stop and think. When I take a breath, and let logic rush back in, I wonder. I wonder how someone so evil could muster a resume that shows accomplishment for such good. I wonder how she could be distrusted because of the power and ruthlessness of her efficiency, yet make so many bumbling mistakes. Hillary's public perception is riddled with paradox.

Interestingly enough one of Donald's latest gambits, is to try to portray Hillary as complicit in Bill's womanizing. And in that fact he clearly accuses her as a victimizer of younger women. Boom! The benefit for Trump is clear. He has to make inroads with the female vote, and young voters. If it works he will have done both.

Yet on the other hand, everyone against Trump, from his earliest political activities this cycle have made the case for mistreatment of all his subcontractors in his Atlantic City bankruptcy. I find myself not despising Donald as much as Hillary. These cross allegations are despicable if true.

But here is the rub. Is all of this theater as effective as it plays into a pro-male bias? I thought about it for a bit. I first wanted to say that I am not biased toward men, with four daughters, etc. But I wonder if there is a societal element that influences this?

There are archetypes in this election that are strong. Archetypes in terms of characters, and behaviors. I am beginning to believe Donald understands this and is mastering it.

He clearly believes that he can act any way he wants, that he doesn't have to act presidential at all. Because I really believe, Donald thinks he is the Chief Alpha male in America. And that if he portrays Hillary as the Evil old Sorceress, the electorate will not identify with her, and ultimately will turn away from her.

This is an interesting side for me. A waste of time, or irrelevant? Maybe. But no different than arguing how many jobs will be created by what plan if 10,000 variables line up.

Here is what I am interested in from a politician. Take Barack Obama; he proposed, championed, and pulled off the GM bailout, when many were against him, and it turned out to be the absolute right decision, an anchor of turning the economy around, and it was done ahead of schedule, and less expensively than anticipated.

I have been throughout General Motors, so I know the daunting task that was at hand. GM didn't get to the point it was at because of a 2008 economic downturn, although that was enough to fold the shit-show.

So I want a President that shows the best economic overall performance over the course of their time in office. Obama for example shows the best overall numbers of any of the Presidents in my lifetime, followed of course by Clinton.

Now for all you who want to make up numbers and interpret things differently, like there are always two sides to this. Forget it.

It is different than numbers. It is working with what you have. It is working for everybody. It is using all resources.

And it is one more thing, that nobody, not one candidate, or the American electorate has insisted on. It is about developing and planning for sustained, long-term growth.

It obviously can be done. But no one has had the courage to go after it. Not one mainstream candidate. We are too busy worrying about who is in whose cooch, or if indeed that is a desirable thing or not.

 

[pkt77242]

You don't HAVE to vote for one of the options that they gave you. Your vote is yours. You can write in Donald Duck if you want. A non-vote, or write-in vote, in the Presidential election is a message to the establishment that you are fed up with their "lesser of two evils" strategies. If 20 million people wrote in Chuck Norris, how many Independents do you think would get into the 2020 race? That's 20 millions votes that are certainly up for grabs. That would be pretty attractive to people from outside of the system who have the cache to mount a campaign.

If it was Hilary vs Jeb, I would consider that but I consider Trump to be a threat to our country and thus in good conscience I couldn't do that.

Presidents MIGHT get judged by how many jobs they create................... AFTER they create them. They don't get credit for shit they haven't done yet. Will Barack Obama be remembered for closing Guantanamo Bay? Is Bill Clinton remembered for Universal Healthcare? Is Bush I remembered for no new taxes? I hate the fucking witch, but that has nothing to do with not giving her credit. I'm not giving her credit for creating ANY jobs because she HASN'T CREATED ANY.

You don't have to give her credit but if you actually read both of Moody's forecast (Hilary's and Trump's) it might help you understand why Hilary is more likely to be better for the economy (key word is more likely, there is no guarantees).

Hillary Clinton is going to raise taxes on banks? Are you fucking kidding me? You know what? She might raise some taxes on banks. But given the amount of money she has taken from Investment Banks, I can almost guarantee you that she will make up for that by cutting some other tax(es) for them, so that their net increase is 0. And do you realize how many people the oil companies employ? From the people who operate and maintain their wells; to the people who work in the restaurants, hotels, shops, etc, in the areas around those wells; to the truck drivers who haul the oil and gas; to the helicopter pilots and mechanics of Columbia Helicopters, Inc. (Home | Columbia Helicopters) that move the equipment to help them find new wells; to the people who build, maintain, and service pipelines: The oil and gas industry employs, directly or indirectly, a shit-ton of people. If you think that raising taxes on them isn't going to cause significant job losses for some communities, then you need to turn South Park off and get out of the house once in a while.

I take it that you didn't read the report at all. Do you ever read anything? Hilary wants to impose a tax on high frequency trading (doubtful but possible). Also remember that Obama raised more money from banks than McCain and he still went and tried to get restrictions on them.

As to Oil companies, she wants to cut current tax incentives to them, and add an excise tax to oil from tar sands (that would go into a fund for clean-up of spills). Why don't you actually try reading before attacking.

To be honest, I really don't give a fuck what some overpaid, underexperienced Melissa Glick wannabe at Wharton has to say about NAFTA. I watched, firsthand, as family and friends lost their jobs at the Hoover Company (Hoover vacuums). Jobs that went straight to Juarez, Mexico. My dad was lucky enough to retire (35 years) before they shipped his job down there. Those jobs were not going to Asia, period. If not for NAFTA, some of those jobs would certainly have gone to Mexico anyway, but there would still be a Hoover Co. in North Canton, OH. By the way, this comes on the heels, kind of, of the steel industry decimating Stark County, OH by closing plants. For 40 years, politicians have been promising to bring industry back to the Rust Belt, and not following through on them. And it's not just there that it is happening. THAT is why voters are pissed off about the status quo, and are fed up with career politicians.

You because you saw the negative, there can't have been a positive? Also what makes you think that Hoover wouldn't have gone to China? Companies like Bissell procude there. Dyson makes their products in Malaysia. You can blame NAFTA for them going to Mexico, but they were leaving the US anyways, it was just a matter of time and to which country would they go.

Manufacturing isn't coming back to the U.S. in any large amount. Deal with it. We expect high wages for our workers and we demand low prices at the store. Which shockingly leads to the last part.

I have an idea................ since our economy is going down the tubes, how about if we have the federal government pay for EVERYONE'S college? YEAH, that's the ticket! Let's spend another $62B+ that we don't have. That way, Susie can get her Lesbian Studies degree; then we can all pay for her social services when she finds that there are no jobs in that field, and that the only jobs she can find are minimum wage jobs. Because her college degree is worthless. After all, EVERYONE has one.

As usual you are whining like a child. Where did I say anything about free college? Oh that is right, I didn't.
I said "Of course there was a loss of manufacturing jobs but the real problem is that we didn't do enough to help retrain those workers so that they could be competitive in the 21st century labor market. That is our real failure."

You have to suck at reading comprehension. We need to train people for the jobs that we have, such as welding, computer skills (no not a full college degree but you can get a certificate in programming from a community college for $5K), mechanics, construction, etc.

I also think that it is funny that you went for "Lesbian Studies", maybe some pent up frustration on your part?

I am done responding to you.

 

[pkt77242]

Trump faces backlash over attacks on family of slain Muslim US soldier - CNNPolitics.com

Is the criticism fair? What do you think of his comments?

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Trump faces backlash over attacks on family of slain Muslim US soldier - CNNPolitics.com

Is the criticism fair? What do you think of his comments?

He's an ass. Should've kept his big mouth shut, but he's not capable of doing that. If he wins, will he tweet every stupid thought that enters his head? He's nowhere close to presidential.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Trump faces backlash over attacks on family of slain Muslim US soldier - CNNPolitics.com

Is the criticism fair? What do you think of his comments?

Pretty stunning stuff. I think this will actually hurt him. He's questioning the character of the parents of a fallen soldier. That never goes well.

 

[EddytoNow]

Trump faces backlash over attacks on family of slain Muslim US soldier - CNNPolitics.com

Is the criticism fair? What do you think of his comments?

The sad fact is that Trump himself doesn't see or won't admit he crossed a line. He is so pompous that he thinks he is immune from criticism. If elected, what will he do when the real criticism comes, as it does for every president?

 

[irishfan]

Trump faces backlash over attacks on family of slain Muslim US soldier - CNNPolitics.com

Is the criticism fair? What do you think of his comments?

He's an idiot. Should've said the parents should be blaming Hillary and then dropped it.

His inability to avoid responding/attacking to every little thing will do him in if Hillary runs a clean and scandal-free campaign going forward.

 

[kmoose]

If it was Hilary vs Jeb, I would consider that but I consider Trump to be a threat to our country and thus in good conscience I couldn't do that.


You don't have to give her credit but if you actually read both of Moody's forecast (Hilary's and Trump's) it might help you understand why Hilary is more likely to be better for the economy (key word is more likely, there is no guarantees).


I take it that you didn't read the report at all. Do you ever read anything? Hilary wants to impose a tax on high frequency trading (doubtful but possible). Also remember that Obama raised more money from banks than McCain and he still went and tried to get restrictions on them.

As to Oil companies, she wants to cut current tax incentives to them, and add an excise tax to oil from tar sands (that would go into a fund for clean-up of spills). Why don't you actually try reading before attacking.


You because you saw the negative, there can't have been a positive? Also what makes you think that Hoover wouldn't have gone to China? Companies like Bissell procude there. Dyson makes their products in Malaysia. You can blame NAFTA for them going to Mexico, but they were leaving the US anyways, it was just a matter of time and to which country would they go.

Manufacturing isn't coming back to the U.S. in any large amount. Deal with it. We expect high wages for our workers and we demand low prices at the store. Which shockingly leads to the last part.



As usual you are whining like a child. Where did I say anything about free college? Oh that is right, I didn't.
I said "Of course there was a loss of manufacturing jobs but the real problem is that we didn't do enough to help retrain those workers so that they could be competitive in the 21st century labor market. That is our real failure."

You have to suck at reading comprehension. We need to train people for the jobs that we have, such as welding, computer skills (no not a full college degree but you can get a certificate in programming from a community college for $5K), mechanics, construction, etc.

I also think that it is funny that you went for "Lesbian Studies", maybe some pent up frustration on your part?

I am done responding to you.

Good. I'm tired of listening to your whining gash.

 

[kmoose]

Trump faces backlash over attacks on family of slain Muslim US soldier - CNNPolitics.com

Is the criticism fair? What do you think of his comments?

The criticism is fair, although too much drama is being made out of it. He said that the mother did not speak, and that maybe she wasn't allowed to speak. As far as I have read, that is the ONLY criticism he has leveled at the family. But you just can't say things like that to parents of fallen military members. If the son had been wounded, I might feel differently. But he was killed, so you have to more carefully measure your words.

 

[gkIrish]

John Oliver came close to convincing me to vote for HRC tonight with the point about Trump bring incapable of consoling families of dead soldiers.

 

[EddytoNow]

I feel sorry for Pence. Trump is like the dog that sh**s in the neighbor's yard and then moves on to do the same in the next yard. Pence is following behind with a pooper-scooper cleaning up the mess.

 

[connor_in]

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Trump faces backlash over attacks on family of slain Muslim US soldier - CNNPolitics.com

Is the criticism fair? What do you think of his comments?

Criticism? I think it is beyond 'criticism.'

• Donald Trump made a very crucial decision to criticize Ghazala Khan, along the lines of his standard criticism of women, that she was held silent by her husband, and to blame that on Islam. It wasn't a shrewd political tact out of the Trump playbook (as he expected it would be perceived); it was an indication of Donald Trump's poor character.
• Donald responded three or four times in this exchange, only digging his hole deeper. He just can't shut up. He would be owned by Putin, the Chinese, etc.
• In his response, Donald Trump actually defended himself against the criticism that he had sacrificed nothing, by saying he did make sacrifices, including making huge amounts of money and obtaining great wealth and success. Somebody just needs to make an add using just his words showing Donald Trump has no idea of what sacrifice is, which is pretty freakin' important for a guy that has put everyone on notice that he plans on exercising American military might!
• Not only is Mike Pence's staff having meetings about distancing themselves from Trump and his rhetoric, but the entire Republican party is calling for his censure over these comments. When has this kind of thing has never happened in an American political election before?

 

[BleedBlueGold]

John Oliver came close to convincing me to vote for HRC tonight with the point about Trump bring incapable of consoling families of dead soldiers.

I love John Oliver. I miss John Stewart.

Our politics practically do their jobs for them, but man, are they great at what they do.

The RNC is not the RNC anymore. Point out a true conservative anywhere in that room...Don't worry, I'll wait.

The DNC is a laughing stock as well to anyone without blinders. What a corrupt circus that was.

Final thought, yes, Trump's comments regarding the Khan family as well as thinking success = sacrifice are so disturbing that I don't see how anyone can vote for this man.

Criticism? I think it is beyond 'criticism.'

• Donald Trump made a very crucial decision to criticize Ghazala Khan, along the lines of his standard criticism of women, that she was held silent by her husband, and to blame that on Islam. It wasn't a shrewd political tact out of the Trump playbook (as he expected it would be perceived); it was an indication of Donald Trump's poor character.
• Donald responded three or four times in this exchange, only digging his hole deeper. He just can't shut up. He would be owned by Putin, the Chinese, etc.
• In his response, Donald Trump actually defended himself against the criticism that he had sacrificed nothing, by saying he did make sacrifices, including making huge amounts of money and obtaining great wealth and success. Somebody just needs to make an add using just his words showing Donald Trump has no idea of what sacrifice is, which is pretty freakin' important for a guy that has put everyone on notice that he plans on exercising American military might!
• Not only is Mike Pence's staff having meetings about distancing themselves from Trump and his rhetoric, but the entire Republican party is calling for his censure over these comments. When has this kind of thing has never happened in an American political election before?

I read somewhere that the GOP would love nothing more than to have Donald win the presidency and then have him impeached the first chance they get in order to get Pence at the top.

 

[wizards8507]

I read somewhere that the GOP would love nothing more than to have Donald win the presidency and then have him impeached the first chance they get in order to get Pence at the top.

It would be pretty funny to see the Republican Congress trying to impeach Trump while the Dems resist because they find Trump preferable to Pence.

 

[connor_in]

Hillary Clinton Campaign Hosting 'Cybersecurity Fundraiser'

 

[IrishJayhawk]

It would be pretty funny to see the Republican Congress trying to impeach Trump while the Dems resist because they find Trump preferable to Pence.

Man. That would be a shit show.

 

[connor_in]

Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees - NYT

 

[ACamp1900]

Man. That would be a shit show.

My dear good friend,... The shitshow is already on and poppin..

Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees - NYT

.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I cannot imagine that nobody has discussed the over/under on when this campaign is over. Also from the NYT :

Donald J. Trump on Sunday offered a muddled explanation of his views about the 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia and its continued efforts to undermine Ukraine’s control of other parts of the country, and he amplified his earlier suggestion that, if elected president, he might recognize Russia’s claim and end sanctions against it.

In an interview with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week,” Mr. Trump said that if he were president, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia would not send his forces into Ukraine. He then backpedaled when Mr. Stephanopoulos pointed out that Russian troops had been there for nearly two years.

“He’s not going into Ukraine, O.K., just so you understand,” Mr. Trump, the Republican nominee, said when the issue came up. “He’s not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it anywhere you want.”

“Well, he’s already there, isn’t he?” Mr. Stephanopoulos interrupted.

“O.K., well, he’s there in a certain way,” Mr. Trump replied. “But I’m not there. You have Obama there. And frankly, that whole part of the world is a mess under Obama with all the strength that you’re talking about and all of the power of NATO and all of this. In the meantime, he’s going away. He take — takes Crimea.”

Interpreting Mr. Trump’s statements — what he understands about the current status of Ukraine, a former Soviet republic, and how it would change in a Trump administration — is difficult given the fractured nature of the exchange. But they were significant because Mr. Trump has seemingly embraced Mr. Putin, repeatedly called for better relations with Russia and shown an unwillingness to condemn Mr. Putin for his aggressive actions against Russia’s neighbors and its crackdowns on freedoms at home.

Questions have been raised about the watering down of a section of the Republican platform dealing with Ukraine amid evidence that wording to support sending lethal weapons to the Ukrainian government was removed from the text.

Not since 1976, when President Gerald Ford committed a major gaffe in one of his debates with Jimmy Carter, declaring that “there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe,” has the issue of American support of Eastern European states, both those in NATO and those outside it, emerged as a major presidential campaign issue. It was enormously harmful to Mr. Ford, because his statement seemed to suggest that he did not understand the geopolitics of the region, which his staff denied.

Ford was laboring under the fact that English always was a second language. But Trump showed he hasn't a clue. This is the candidate that says he is better for American security. And a majority of white males agree(d) with him!

 

[Wild Bill]

I cannot imagine that nobody has discussed the over/under on when this campaign is over. Also from the NYT :



Ford was laboring under the fact that English always was a second language. But Trump showed he hasn't a clue. This is the candidate that says he is better for American security. And a majority of white males agree(d) with him!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xywq-c4-noU

 

[Domina Nostra]

White males! Sheesh.

The foreign policy experts and gurus would be a little more convincing if they were consistently right about anything.

Who is it that we are supposed to be trusting regarding our foreign policy with Russia? We've been all over the place lately, and the CIA and NATO have been pretty darn active in that part of the world for a long time. It's hard for me to understand how Russia is supposed to act. Especially when (arguably) ethnically and historically Russian Crimea is involved.

It's like the Iraq war. It was supposed to be proof that toppling bad guys and trying to nation-build was a bad idea, yet we supported the same things in Lybia and Egypt, and want to do it again in Syria. Dems and Republicans are all over the place on these issues.

Without giving trump credit where none is due, is there really some clear guiding principle that Clinton is applying that makes so much sense of the situation?