The DON

MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum

Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kevin,

I have no problem with folks changing their minds if they are forthcoming and honest about why they did. We all do this to some degree given our cumulative life experiences and societal norm changes which may challenge our previously held beliefs.

Yes, all politicos do it. It's a question of determining whether it is sincere and based on the above or merely meant to get more votes. Therein lies the challenge.

Gordon
 
Some more classic Trump in an article today from CNN Money. Last year, Trump criticized Fed Chair Janet Yellen for keeping rates so low for so long. But today Trump says that "if interest rates go up 1%, that's devastating." So now he likes low interest rates, so he must like Yellen right? Because she has been a dove on rates. Wrong. He doesn't like her because she is a democrat and he wants a republican in that position. But wait. Republicans are traditionally interest rate Hawks and raise them faster and more aggressively to ward off inflation. How can you like low rates but want to replace Yellen with a republican? Just another example of Trump's complete ignorance of the actual policy choices a President must make and how it all works. He just spouts off whatever sounds good to him in the moment, without any clue of the real world implications of his words.

Here's a link to the article: http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/05/investing/trump-king-of-debt-fire-janet-yellen/

Edit - Ok, one more. I couldn't make this up if I was trying. Link: Trump Uses Taco Bowl To Try To Reach Out To Hispanic Voters
 
Last edited:
Here is what I find scary.... Russian planes doing fly bys over our ships and barrel rolls over recon planes in international air/water. I find a goofball dictator 'testing' his nuclear arsenal and long range abilities scary as well. Isis running over the Middle East and thru Europe.

Now if trump really scares you guys I think you need to think of our current state and the intent of these practices. Why do you think these groups are testing us? What have we done to prevent further aggressive acts?
You can be scared of trump but I think the current administrations actions or lack thereof are scary as well.
 
Here is what I find scary.... Russian planes doing fly bys over our ships and barrel rolls over recon planes in international air/water. I find a goofball dictator 'testing' his nuclear arsenal and long range abilities scary as well. Isis running over the Middle East and thru Europe.

Now if trump really scares you guys I think you need to think of our current state and the intent of these practices. Why do you think these groups are testing us? What have we done to prevent further aggressive acts?
You can be scared of trump but I think the current administrations actions or lack thereof are scary as well.

Yep +1, no make that +2! We are a laughing stock of the planet right now, you may not like how the change happens but, happen it will...and not with Hillary.
 
I think history belies the notion that these guys are testing us because they think Obama is weak. FDR was considered a strong leader, yet Pearl Harbor happened on his watch. Bush Jr. was considered a hawk, but 9/11 still happened on his watch. JFK was a strong leader, yet the Cuban Missile Crisis still occurred. These countries will always test us and provocate, regardless. But the mettle of a true leader is determined by whether we allow the minor provocations to lead to an all out war that neither country really wants. For reference, compare JFK's handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis to Bush and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Those wars cost us untold trillions and many good lives, but we are no safer now for having fought them. The power vacuum left behind is what gave rise to ISIS in the first place. We are not the world police and can't fix every problem in the world with our military might. And Obama has done a better job than you guys think. He took out bin Laden, which Bush vowed to do but never accomplished. If we are the laughing stock of the world, why did Iran agree to give up its quest for nuclear weapons? It sure wasn't Russia or China convincing them to do so. Sometimes the mettle of a leader is their ability to negotiate from a position of strength, rather than to go off half-cocked into a war on the slightest provocation, which is pretty much what I would expect Trump to do.
 
Here is what I find scary.... Russian planes doing fly bys over our ships and barrel rolls over recon planes in international air/water. I find a goofball dictator 'testing' his nuclear arsenal and long range abilities scary as well. Isis running over the Middle East and thru Europe.

Now if trump really scares you guys I think you need to think of our current state and the intent of these practices. Why do you think these groups are testing us? What have we done to prevent further aggressive acts?
You can be scared of trump but I think the current administrations actions or lack thereof are scary as well.

I agree that Putin is rattling his saber and is a problem to be dealt with. I would rather have Hillary tackle this, as she has been lauded as one of the best Secretaries of State we've ever had by two previous republican Secretaries of State, by previous presidents, and has won the admiration of our military leadership, than Trump, who has no qualifications whatsoever in dealing with situations like Putin. As far as "our current administrations lack of action", what would you like to see? President Obama has input from the military and his Secretary of State and his advisers and makes decisions based on that and his judgement. I'm quite sure he has even more information than the public does regarding Putin.
 
Not only have we done nothing to prevent those acts Timm, I think we have encouraged them. I don't think it's a coincidence that things have escalated after we gave Syria a red line if they used chemical weapons, and then failed to keep our warning. Not saying we should have invaded Syria, but how about not issuing a red line from the start if we had no intention to enforce it? We made the nuclear deal with Iran, and they violated the terms of that deal shortly afterwards with the testing of ballistic missiles. Our response has been a few symbolic sanctions which Iran has stated won't stop further testing of missiles. China has built manmade islands in contested areas of the South China Sea, that the US claims to be international waters, but we apologized to China when one of our B-52's flew over an island.

If all we do is project weakness and capitulate at every turn, is any wonder that bullies out there are going to take advantage?
 
Here is what I find scary.... Isis running over the Middle East and thru Europe. Why do you think these groups are testing us? What have we done to prevent further aggressive acts?

Hi timm,

Something for you and others to consider regarding what the Obama administration has done.

November 12, 2011 / Osama Bin Laden killed in special US ops raid.

Drone operations / US led air strikes.

November 12, 2015 / Jihadi John aka Mohammed Emwazi (ISIS operative and spokesperson linked with beheadings of various people) killed by US.

December 10, 2015 / Siful Haque Sujan (ISIS tech expert) killed by US.

December 15, 2015 / Abdel Qader Hakim (ISIS - linked to Paris attacks) killed by US.

December 24, 2015 / Charaffe Al Mouadan (ISIS - linked to Paris attacks) killed by US.

March 25, 2016 / Mustafa Al Qaduli (ISIS second in command) killed by US.

That's a partial list. I apologize in advance for my spelling.

Gordon

PS: Do you, Kevin, Stuwee and others really believe this country has the stomach, support of the US people and can commit to another war involving US ground troupes on a large scale overseas? I and the majority of the US population (I think) do not. If you agree with me on this, what specific actions would you and others propose that we are not currently pursuing?
 
Last edited:
Rich... you are right.... however.... Regarding FDR.... The US at that time - I believe was more isolationist.... We dragged our feet getting into WWII....Hitler stomped all over Europe and our allies..killed a lot of people....and I mean - a lot of people (that was for the Trump people) .. until Pearl Harbor when thousands died.. then we got involved full time and FDR responded..... Re: 911 .... thousands died.... most presidents are going to respond to the 'thousands died' type of thing .... and respond with force..... JFK being a strong leader ... I agree again... However, his actions quite frankly could have been viewed as reckless because if Cuba/Russia would not have backed down....... then what??? It was quite dangerous - and quite frankly is an act I might expect from Trump....rolling the dice....

Your statement about 'we are no safer'.... I'm not sure about that... There were plenty of predictions of more buildings coming down.... of more terrorist attacks on US soil... It didn't happen....Now why was that? Accident? Luck? They just love us more than Europe? Maybe it was because we were wreaking so much havoc - they couldn't plan an attack on US soil? So, maybe the response - back then was for the 'here and now' -and we will deal with what happens later...... Now we are at the 'later' part of that equation...What do you choose.... the higher possibility of attacks on US soil for the past 15 years or the formation of ISIS? Maybe the failure there was NOT staying.... Not my idea of a 'win-win' - but good gawd .... a mess ....

Why does it seem that everyone calls the Iran nuclear deal a debacle? Is this some kind of payout by the taxpayers of the US? I'm not really sure - but are we giving them money in exchange for backing off of their nukes? If so, don't know about you - but that really makes me cringe....

This world is a tricky place no doubt.... How we became the 'police' and didn't step back at some point is beyond me?

So given all of that.... since it is obvious :) that things are not working.... and haven't been working with many posts about grid-lock / poor foreign policy decisions etc..... Why the hell would you check the box for the 'same old knob'??? This is the Trump phenomenon... 'Hey I remember having this conversation 20 years ago - how things weren't working and Congress sucked etc....' Should I vote for a Dem or a Rep?? Maybe NEITHER!! Again - understand this plays to Trump's strength.. It plays to Bernie's strength (he is not a Dem... he is a socialist....seriously) . Trump is under the republican ticket ... but come on -- He isn't a republican....and all of the stalwart conservatives dislike him.... the political pundits on CNN (ex political campaign leaders) dislike him.... Everyone 'in the know' dislikes him.... EXACTLY THE POINT!! - I understand not liking him.... He is not like anything else... He doesn't read prepared speeches... He doesn't read teleprompters.... Go read posts from the past 15 years... Has anything changed to stop the complaints of the past... or do we as a collective populous (sp??) continue on our merry way and get led around by the news agencies to pick the 'right' candidate...

Sorry I went off the rails ... and I too feel like our choices are limited....but Hillary - to me - really seems like a flawed candidate as well... and quite frankly - we have seen her leadership in action .... what a mess..... And I'm not saying Trump is a prince either ... jeez.... some of the things he says are down-right embarrassing... But, in my opinion, the Clinton 'machine' is quite frankly the typical political insider...politics as usual.... everything we dislike about our government...everything we have complained about over the last 20 years....etc...etc.... Who here has heard this in every election since 1992.... 'We're going to close those tax loop holes that allow companies to send jobs overseas!!' and the crowd roars..... I'm just sick of it... sick of being lied to.... and sick of voting them in.
 
gordo.... I'm afraid the answer to your question is above my pay grade..... But, your examples are great... and I'm not saying the current admin is fumbling everything.... What I am saying is that appearing to ignore aggressive action doesn't really pay off.... lets use Rich's Cuban Missile Crisis as an example.... Kennedy could have been passive here.... thank god he wasn't..... If my kid was on one of those ships that was being dive bombed .... wow.... I mean really - these kids are being told - 'don't defend yourself' WTF??? If the President was on that ship... you think the jets would have been taken out? I'm guessing so? I HOPE so?????? I value each one of those kids lives on that ship as much as anyone else. So, lets suppose we choose not to react... Did the President speak to this? I didn't see anything?

My concern is history has a tendency to repeat itself.... and aggressors have a tendency to poke a couple of times to see your reaction... and if you do nothing.... then bigger things happen which THEN could lead to WWIII.... Lets wait for North Korea to have a SUCCESSFUL nuke delivery test!! And what is the point of that test? What is the point of the fly by ? What is going on in Syria when Kerry has to ask the Russians for favors - while their planes dive bomb our ships? Not a fan....and don't have the stomach for it....just like you.
 
I understand your points, timm. What I don't understand is your thinking that one man will suddenly change all this. You really think Trump is an outsider because the establishment of both parties doesn't want to see him assume the office? The billionaire who has given loads of money to both parties, who was friends with the Clinton's and once said Hillary would make a great president, who vocally supported both Ronald Reagan and Mitt Romney in their respective bids for Presidents? He may not have steadfast loyalty to either party, but an outsider he is not. Nor will he, by himself, be able to change the system in any meaningful way (and neither would Bernie).

Clinton may be establishment, but I see her as a known factor and a pretty safe bet, especially with a republican house to keep her in check. As I recall, our country did pretty well while Bill was in office, despite his sexual proclivities. I don't think it would be that much different with Hillary. With Trump, I have a genuine fear things could go downhill pretty fast.
 
Gordon

PS: Do you, Kevin, Stuwee and others really believe this country has the stomach, support of the US people and can commit to another war involving US ground troupes on a large scale overseas? I and the majority of the US population (I think) do not. If you agree with me on this, what specific actions would you and others propose that we are not currently pursuing?

That's a hard call to make Gordon. Like a hornets nest, I think they would have been much easier to deal with when they first gave an indication of being a problem before waiting until there ranks and territory swelled, but the past is the past and we must deal with what we have now. You are probably right, a poll of Americans taken today would probably indicate that a majority would not support a large boots on the ground invasion. But I know past polls indicated that the majority of Americans did support a larger effort, than was being done, to defeat ISIS. But people are fickle. Take a poll shortly after the news shows images of people being burned or drowned in cages, and you'll see different numbers than you will when ISIS has been out of the news headlines for awhile. Ask basically the same question, but word it differently, you'll get different results. It's why I don't pay much attention to opinion polls. What would American say if we were to ask, "Do you favor the US doing more to take out ISIS?" I would hope our leaders would do what they know is right to protect Americans and friends despite poll numbers.

I try not to judge our leaders call for military action. Someone, perhaps yourself, mentioned earlier that we do not have all the facts that the president or the military does. That is true. Of course, it didn't prevent people from harshly coming down on Bush, and I have been one of them to some extent. I wouldn't even question as hard our involvement in Libya, but my gosh, if people are going to attack Bush for Iraq, then how can you not find fault for Obama in Libya? Perhaps even more so, given that we had hindsight as to what happens when you remove a leader without a sound backup plan.

The problem with ISIS compared more so to other terrorists groups, is there ability to attract foreign fighters, which in turn get training and sometimes take those skills back home. So it's not as easy to say just let them be, we are here and they are there. Also, I do feel for the people that they terrorize in those countries, they are absolutely barbaric, and I bet it's much worse than we know. It's really sad, so I think I would do more than we currently are doing. My best answer as to what 'I' would do is this. Not tomorrow, but today, I would meet with the best of our military leaders and foreign policy advisors and ask what it would take not to degrade or contain them, but to wipe them out. I would hope their answer would be short of large scale war, but I might be ok if they recommended more troops than current. I already know we can do more air attacks than currently. Perhaps more support and arms for the moderates in the area. Pressure other countries to contribute more than they are currently doing. I think I would shy away from asking Russia to help, but I wouldn't discourage any involvement they take on their own. Perhaps a really heavy air attack combined with more specialized forces for a short period, like "shock and awe"? Would that at least hurt their ability to recruit new fighters?

You may say Obama is doing all he can currently, given Americas appetite and ability. I am not so sure. I think Obama wants so much to be the anti-war, anti-boots on the ground president, to support his own legacy for being just that (you know he won the Nobel), that he will resist it as much as he possibly can. Our military leaders say we do have combat troops currently operating in the area. I think the White House still denies that fact. We even did, or at least considered, purchasing heavy water from Iran so they remained within the limits of the Nuclear deal. Was this done to save embarrassment from another breach in the deal? We know he ignored ISIS early when there was growing pressure for the US to become involved. When it comes to his legacy, I think he places that high on his list of priorities. But I won't say that for sure, I can't read minds like others apparently can.

I think the list you provided, of the terrorist killed by Obama is great. But sadly, both Bush and Obama have released far more (I think over 100 confirmed and even more suspected?) terrorist from Gitmo that have rejoined terrorist groups, and we still keep releasing them. Some have bomb making and other important skills. Why??

Sorry, I tend to be long winded. Do you think we are fine with what we are currently doing?
 
Last edited:
As to the Russian maneuvers, this sort of thing is nothing new. All sides do it and it rarely results in anything. Look up the Hainan incident, where a Chinese plane doing this type of stuff bumped and took down an American surveillance plane. As I recall, George Bush did absolutely nothing in response to this incident.
 
I understand your points, timm. What I don't understand is your thinking that one man will suddenly change all this. You really think Trump is an outsider because the establishment of both parties doesn't want to see him assume the office? The billionaire who has given loads of money to both parties, who was friends with the Clinton's and once said Hillary would make a great president, who vocally supported both Ronald Reagan and Mitt Romney in their respective bids for Presidents? He may not have steadfast loyalty to either party, but an outsider he is not. Nor will he, by himself, be able to change the system in any meaningful way (and neither would Bernie).

Clinton may be establishment, but I see her as a known factor and a pretty safe bet, especially with a republican house to keep her in check. As I recall, our country did pretty well while Bill was in office, despite his sexual proclivities. I don't think it would be that much different with Hillary. With Trump, I have a genuine fear things could go downhill pretty fast.

Exactly.

The Congress and Senate would not support Trump as president. Neither party will want to get its hands dirty in a guilty by association situation.

However, the point is moot. There is no way that Trump can actually win the general election. Romney got 59% of the white vote and still didn't win. 17% of our country are Latino and you can't win an election without the Latino vote and Trump has pretty well alienated them. He's upset a lot of other people too.

There are people who have vilified Hillary and will vote for anyone but her, but they are not a majority of voters.

If you look at the graphs over the last year even when Hillary had her worst popularity and Donald his best she was still ahead.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...mbers-collapse-general-election-looms-n548731

"Trump's numbers are horrific among black and Hispanic voters — two groups that the RNC argued the party needed to aggressively court in its autopsy of the 2012 "

"The Post/ABC News survey found three-quarters of women held an unfavorable view of Trump — and that was before his campaign manager was charged with battery against a female reporter and Trump proposed "some form of punishment" for women who terminate a pregnancy should abortion be outlawed."
 
Last edited:
I understand your points, timm. What I don't understand is your thinking that one man will suddenly change all this. You really think Trump is an outsider because the establishment of both parties doesn't want to see him assume the office? The billionaire who has given loads of money to both parties, who was friends with the Clinton's and once said Hillary would make a great president, who vocally supported both Ronald Reagan and Mitt Romney in their respective bids for Presidents? He may not have steadfast loyalty to either party, but an outsider he is not. Nor will he, by himself, be able to change the system in any meaningful way (and neither would Bernie).

Clinton may be establishment, but I see her as a known factor and a pretty safe bet, especially with a republican house to keep her in check. As I recall, our country did pretty well while Bill was in office, despite his sexual proclivities. I don't think it would be that much different with Hillary. With Trump, I have a genuine fear things could go downhill pretty fast.

I know you addressed this to Timm, but I would make a couple of quick points. I did not want Trump, perhaps near the last on my list for the republicans available, but I will defend him on certain points. He freely admitted to donating to Hillary and other democrats. He said he has used the system, that is why he knows the system and is the best person to fix it. You are correct about Bill. But the party, and so has Hillary, has moved left since then. Will Hillary move more towards the center? I think so, but she might not be able to move as far as she would like. Would she say we have ended welfare as we know it? Or would she expand it? She has already thrown Bill under the bus for the crime control law(I can't remember the name of it and don't have time to look it up). By all means it was successful. Violent crime rate went way down. Black Caucus supported it at the time. But now, given the leftward move of the party and her pandering for the black vote, she has to denounce it. I am sure she would support it if were to help instead of hurt her. But she's a politician like that rest of them on both sides.
 
Rich ... I would think that if you have two groups.... and those groups do not like you.... Yes- that makes you an outsider since neither group wants you! haha...

Re: Bill... yes.... I actually could care less what he did in his spare time... I judge a president based on his accomplishments... how he handled the economy...the world.. etc... I'm not a real 'well what was his stand on the rights of this group or that'... Probably because I'm not part of any particular 'group' .... I also don't see how religion fits into the presidency either.... Who here is sick of the 'Praise God.... please give me your donation for my campaign' BS? I mean what are we hiring here (and that is what we are doing) ... the next president or a televangelist??

I never said 'one man could change all of this'.... Change can start with one man though....
 
"Trump's numbers are horrific among black and Hispanic voters — two groups that the RNC argued the party needed to aggressively court in its autopsy of the 2012 "

"The Post/ABC News survey found three-quarters of women held an unfavorable view of Trump — and that was before his campaign manager was charged with battery against a female reporter and Trump proposed "some form of punishment" for women who terminate a pregnancy should abortion be outlawed."

Why is getting votes more important than perhaps doing the right thing? We have a border, we have laws against illegally crossing that border. The only reason why we have an immigration problem, people living in the shadows, is because we have never really enforced that law as we should have, and so the problem as persisted and grown worse over time. As I have pointed out in the past, look up the most wanted list of any state or city near the border and look at the names on that list. There is a problem. We should protect our border, maybe not a wall, but something much more than we are currently doing. And we shouldn't just keep making illegal people legal, and think that ends the problem. But those things don't get votes, but would it improve our situation?

Concerning Trumps view on the abortion law. What law do we currently have that you can break without the potential for punishment? Except perhaps keeping government emails on a personal server if you're a well known politician. Ha. Shouldn't every law at least something on the books suggesting a punishment? Might not need to be entirely enforced in all situations. But what good is a law if there is absolutely no chance for punishment if it is broken? By the way, I think abortions should be legal up to a certain point, so I am not against abortions entirely myself. But if you have a law, have a penalty for breaking it, or don't create the law at all.
 
Last edited:
Why is getting votes more important than perhaps doing the right thing?

Getting the votes only matters if you want to be elected.

The dialog needs to be about why Donald got the support he got and what needs to change in both parties because of how this election cycles has gone.

I suspect that is why Paul Ryan will be meeting with Donald shortly. He is doing triage for the party and while Donald won't win, Paul's concern will be that the GOP doesn't lose their majority in the Senate and Congress.

I've heard a number of republicans who have said they won't be voting in this election cycle, but that also means they won't be voting for Representatives and Senators.

The flip side is that the Trump supporters tend to be more Tea Party than GOP which means the GOP is losing more control.

There is a lot going on at a lot of levels.
 
Getting the votes only matters if you want to be elected.

Boy have I learned a lesson here this week. Humanity in general finds the raping of preteen girls appealing, and getting elected is more important than the health of the country.
 
If I said that what happened in the past does not the future make... Would you believe that? Would you believe that possibly the electorate that may show up for this election could be different than those in the past? Would you believe that the dynamic in this election is different than any in our lifetimes ? This is different. Crazy different. There is something at play here that could turn the election on its ear. People will be voting out of passion. more of a hate trump/hate Hillary/lwant change. It is interesting to think that a 3% point win in the past - considered quite large- is simply 3 people out of 100 changing their mind. I know what the polls say today - just curious to see how things actually play out. I will say this - if Hillary gets Bernie on the ticket - it is a lock. I just don't know if he will do it. Some of those Bernie supporters could go trump because of their desire for change. But not if he is on the ticket.

One more point. Don't necessarily think in terms of groups. Look at the states. Could trump win Michigan / Ohio (Kasich running mate??) /Pennsylvania (we are gonna put coal miners out of business - HC). What about NY? I doubt that - but trump is a native New Yorker and is viewed as one. Is trump going to win southern border states with immigration issues ? Laugh all you want but it is there. And in the meantime ...the clock is ticking on the email investigation. Wow. Get out the popcorn folks !!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top