Putin was clearly anti-Hillary. Russia orchestrated pro-Bernie and pro-Trump ads. They did not support Hillary. In fact, Putin, several times warned the Western media that there would be war if Hillary was elected. He hates her. He doesn't trust her. I believe this goes back to how she lied when she was secretary of state with regards to Libya. Putin asked her not to depose Gaddafi. The US said they were going to institute a no-fly zone just for humanitarian aid, then used that to bomb and aid rebels who overthrew Gaddafi. That was Putin's ally. She said she was going to do the same in Syria, even though Russia was objecting.
Don't mistake her selling of Uranium to Russia as her support of Russia. Imo, she is just a greedy politician that didn't see Russia as a geo-political threat, but, rather an opportunity to make more money. She would have done whatever she wanted while in office, and I truly believe our relationship with Russia would be significantly worse. Trump is hard on Russia, but he respects their autonomy.
(01-29-2020, 12:10 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (01-28-2020, 11:25 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Removing Trump at this juncture for these reasons would certainly make the House and the Senate great again. It would show that they are independent centers of power that care about more than just party labels, and that they really care about making elections fair.
Removing Trump would just leave the House and Senate more beholden to the replacement. Trump was a political outsider. Every other possible POTUS is part of the entrenched ruling elite. The House (even when Pub) and the Senate are not giving Trump carte blanche; for example there is no major wall-building program, and Obamacare is still around, which were two of Trump's main campaign promises. All getting rid of Trump would do is show that the people matter even less. The message then is: "Elect someone the ruling class doesn't approve of and we'll make up some ridiculous charges and impeach him out."
The ruling class is a diverse group that's rarely in agreement about anything.
Question: suppose you asked all 100 senators and all 50 governors to nominate someone for President, someone other than themselves. Heck, even include the 5 territorial governor's. That's 155 people who have all achieved something in government, and know how it works. Do you think, in mid or late 2015, even one of them would have picked Trump?
(01-29-2020, 09:38 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020, 12:10 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]Removing Trump would just leave the House and Senate more beholden to the replacement. Trump was a political outsider. Every other possible POTUS is part of the entrenched ruling elite. The House (even when Pub) and the Senate are not giving Trump carte blanche; for example there is no major wall-building program, and Obamacare is still around, which were two of Trump's main campaign promises. All getting rid of Trump would do is show that the people matter even less. The message then is: "Elect someone the ruling class doesn't approve of and we'll make up some ridiculous charges and impeach him out."
The ruling class is a diverse group that's rarely in agreement about anything.
Question: suppose you asked all 100 senators and all 50 governors to nominate someone for President, someone other than themselves. Heck, even include the 5 territorial governor's. That's 155 people who have all achieved something in government, and know how it works. Do you think, in mid or late 2015, even one of them would have picked Trump?
What is the point of your question?
(01-29-2020, 11:31 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020, 09:38 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The ruling class is a diverse group that's rarely in agreement about anything.
Question: suppose you asked all 100 senators and all 50 governors to nominate someone for President, someone other than themselves. Heck, even include the 5 territorial governor's. That's 155 people who have all achieved something in government, and know how it works. Do you think, in mid or late 2015, even one of them would have picked Trump?
What is the point of your question?
Don't you agree there would be a wide diversity of candidates to choose from, both for and against the status quo? Don't you think think at least one of these 155 people might have picked someone better than Trump?
(01-29-2020, 12:01 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020, 11:39 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Don't you agree there would be a wide diversity of candidates to choose from, both for and against the status quo? Don't you think think at least one of these 155 people might have picked someone better than Trump?
155 members of the ruling class? Of course they wouldn't pick an outsider like Trump. That's part of our argument. What's your point?
That answers my first question. Can you answer the other two?
Because he thinks he has some poignant lesson to share.
(01-29-2020, 12:01 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020, 11:39 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Don't you agree there would be a wide diversity of candidates to choose from, both for and against the status quo? Don't you think think at least one of these 155 people might have picked someone better than Trump?
155 members of the ruling class? Of course they wouldn't pick an outsider like Trump. That's part of our argument. What's your point?
I think they would picked some outsiders.
A guy who might be beholden to just one senator is not the same thing as a guy who's beholden to the entire donating elite of a political party going back two or three decades.
But none of them would have picked Trump.
(01-29-2020, 06:01 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020, 12:41 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I think they would picked some outsiders.
A guy who might be beholden to just one senator is not the same thing as a guy who's beholden to the entire donating elite of a political party going back two or three decades.
But none of them would have picked Trump.
In 2016 I wouldn't have picked Trump either. But after seeing all of Trump's accomplishments to date, not picking Trump would have been a mistake. Most of the other Pubs would have negotiated away some of Trump's accomplishments in the interest of "bipartisanship." Who else would initiate a trade war with China to protect American intellectual property? I've read a lot of conservatives who disapprove of Trump's challenge to China. Maybe a progressive would, but then we'd still be in the Paris treaty accord and sending $100B a year in climate reparations to 3rd world dictators.
So this is another place where we disagree.
I agree with you that Trump has been more reluctant to get involved in shooting wars and less reluctant to get involved and trade wars than a stereotypical Republican.
And I agree with you this is a good thing.
But I think that Rand Paul or Ted Cruz would have made about the same choices if we had made either of them president instead.