Is Trump a mainstream Republican?

[TUMe]

Hey WATU, I just noticed that you have six threads that you have started on this page of Crossfire that are questions. Neat. Brer Rabid asked you a question about Republican candidates and there has been not a peep of an answer. Surely you find one slightly less terrible than the others. If you don't answer questions, why should people keep answering yours which are much more loaded than this simple one? I guess I just asked you a question, huh? Darn another question.

 

[aTUfan]

You might ask Hillary that.
----------------
HRC don't answer any questions.

 

[TU 1978]

Trump could run with Hillary. They're more alike.

Trump isn't a Republican. He's closer in thinking to a certain 1930's politician - in Germany.

 

[WATU2]

You want to talk damages? How about the ones we know about? $2 or 3 trillion, 40k US wounded, hundreds of thousands civilians, and millions in refugee camps.... And what do we get? Oh, that was 8 years ago and does not matter.

But hypothetical "damages", well, that is different.

Yes, it is a problem, but the comparatively it is in the noise.

I'm not sure we will ever know the "damage" caused by this act. Clinton had the server professionally wiped clean before complying with the FBI's request to turn it over. Thus, we may never know what classified material was on there which was open for viewing by even the most elementary of hackers. Again....you have a Sec of State using what amounts to an out of the garage computer shop to control and safeguard federal emails to a cabinet level position because she didn't want an official record of the same. Yet, there are people who still would intrust her with our highest level of national security matters and support her over good people like Sanders and O'Malley. Simply boggles one's mind.

 

[lawpoke87]

I'm not sure what that response has to do with Hillary's actions with classified material. Is Hillary running against Dubya? I was always against the Iraq war and have never supported Dubya's foreign policy. One has nothing to do with the other. Objective people can criticize the actions of individuals regardless of their political affiliations.

 

[aTUfan]

What is a "mainstream" Republican? There are 17 people running. I don't agree 100% we any of them. But some are closer to my issues.

 

[WATU2]

It's one thing to question Hillary's IT judgement but bringing up speculative, unproven damages smacks of what I dislike about Fox. Speculative, unproven damages are what was used to justify the Iraq invasion. As a long time poster who was made unwelcome on this site for posting my objections to the invasion in Iraq prior to the invasion, I don't recall anyone else posting those views at the time. Frankly the numbers of people who say they opposed the invasion at the time seem to have grown considerably since 2003. I wish more had been more vocal at the time.

BTW Hillary may well be running against someone who supports Dubya's foreign policy, at least so far.

I'm not sure what that response has to do with Hillary's actions with classified material. Is Hillary running against Dubya? I was always against the Iraq war and have never supported Dubya's foreign policy. One has nothing to do with the other. Objective people can criticize the actions of individuals regardless of their political affiliations.

 

[URedskin54]

Lol IT judgement. You really are something

 

[TUMe]

As a long time poster who was made unwelcome on this site for posting my objections to the invasion in Iraq prior to the invasion, I don't recall anyone else posting those views at the time. Frankly the numbers of people who say they opposed the invasion at the time seem to have grown considerably since 2003. I wish more had been more vocal at the time.

You confuse someone strongly disagreeing with you with being made unwelcome. What you mean is that you are a serial leaver and returner. I will state very firmly that I supported the invasion. I will never deny it.

1. Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He had poison gas and had a history of using it on the Kurds [part of his own country] and Iran. Since we were denied an invasion course from the West, three guess where Syria got their poison gases they used.

2. Saddam was good at running a bluff. So good it cost him his life and those of his sons. He threw out inspectors searching for nuclear activity and at various times let them back in but limited where they could go. He disabled monitoring devices including TV cameras. With his history of invading Kuwait and wars with Iran along with what was known at the time he gave every indication of being extremely dangerous. The resolution passed Congress with support for both parties. Some who were against it before they were for it.

I will say that the problem was that we did not have a plan to do after we won. That was a problem shared by Bush, Obama, and the military.

WATU, I hope this post doesn't make you feel unwelcome. I would hate for you to quit forever again only to comeback in a month or two.

 

[aTUfan]

The dems and the rest of the world were aware what WMDs they had and their potential threat, when we went in. They VOTED to do it, and unlike our current situation, the vote was bipartician and the Pres didn't have to twist arms in his own party to get support.

 

[TUMe]

58% of the Democrats voted Aye including Kerry, Clinton, Biden, Reid, and Schumer.

The others were made to feel unwelcome.

 

[lawpoke87]

I'm still confused as to the correlation between Hillary's email mess and a past President's decision to invade Iraq. Is Dubya what we still throw out when we have nothing else?

 

[WATU2]

Understood. Both are indicators of poor judgement, unfortunately the consequences were so vastly different that there is no comparison.

I am not a Hillary fan, but the Republicans seem committed only to those dedicated to making the same mistakes as Bush did.

The other argument I cannot get around consists of two words: Supreme Court. Obama was way too nice in his SOTU comments to the Supremes about Citizens United. Big money and increasing income disparity are now built into the system.

 

[WATU2]

But back to Trump. Every day a new poll argues that he best represents mainstream Republican thought. Or maybe anger over the hypocrisy of main stream Republican actions (ok, probably both parties in Congress.)

It is interesting that so many want to elect a government from people who basically do not believe that good government exists. A self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[lawpoke87]

.

I am not a Hillary fan, but the Republicans seem committed only to those dedicated to making the same mistakes as Bush did.

The other argument I cannot get around consists of two words: Supreme Court. Obama was way too nice in his SOTU comments to the Supremes about Citizens United. Big money and increasing income disparity are now built into the system.

I would argue that Hillary is as big of war hawk as any of the Reps running. She supported the invasion of Iraq. She spearheaded our military coup in Libya then watched us walk away leaving chaos in the aftermath...not that Khadafi was any better.

As for Trump, I suppose his attraction is that he isn't a politician. He is uncensored and believable? As I think Hillary and Trump are among the two possible worst choices out there I frankly don't understand the attraction to either.
Ironic that the only way either likely wins the presidency is if they other is their opponent. Both are shaping up to be very weak candidates in the general.

 

[WATU2]

It is a reasonable argument, although the Republican (and this board's) tilt toward boots on the ground goes well beyond the Dems. Hillary had to make real decisions that none of the Republicans have yet faced either as a decision maker or in uniform, so we would have to go down the learning curve with them. Expensive OJT, as we learned with....yes, Bush! Too much easy chest beating for me.
BTW Two candidates who are the two most alike and ignored are Bernie Sanders and R Paul.

 

[2PoorTUFans]

I would argue that Hillary is as big of war hawk as any of the Reps running. She supported the invasion of Iraq. She spearheaded our military coup in Libya then watched us walk away leaving chaos in the aftermath...not that Khadafi was any better.

I'll agree with you the second Lindsay Graham withdraws. It's wild to see a man who often seems so reasonable and moderate immediately get whipped into a bloodlust induced fervor whenever military action in the middle east gets brought up.

But Hillary's speech at Brookings the other day was pretty eye-opening, to say the least.

 

[WATU2]

I'm still confused as to the correlation between Hillary's email mess and a past President's decision to invade Iraq. Is Dubya what we still throw out when we have nothing else?

Odd comment from someone who uses Isis issues to support his climate view.

 

[WATU2]

While rival Republican candidates try to distance themselves from Trump, does he better represent the Republican mainstream than they do?

The polls show Trump as The Republican Mainstream?

 

[lawpoke87]

Odd comment from someone who uses Isis issues to support his climate view.

I actually used the Administration's massaging/changing intelligence reports to illustrate our government's willingness to change the data to fit their narrative but if you want to define it as using ISIS to support climate then fine. Let me dumb this down. Someone who has shown a willingness to make up data in the past to support it's narrative is more likely to do the same going forward. I don't believe this is a groundbreaking revelation.

 

[WATU2]

Speaking of Benghazi...