Sanders supporters are much more classy.

Sanders Fans Plan DNC 'Fart-In' Protest of Clinton Nomination - NBC News

To me, he sounded petty. He shouldn't have accepted a speaking role then ...
Anyway, Gringrich clarified Ted's statement :)

Cruz wants the nomination in 2020 so wanted to look like he stood up to Trump all the way to the end.

Yup, I get that. That's why he seemed petty to me.

Sad that a message of "vote your conscience" is a frightening idea to the sheep.

Gingrich is all about fear mongering; that was a rancid speech.

Newt Gingrich has been my favorite speech of the whole event so far.

Yup. I'm surprised someone else didn't do it first (like Ryan).

When Trump loses in November the blame game will begin. Cruz now gets to be the guy who never gave in to Trump.

Kids looked pissed.

He's a true neo-con.

Paul Ryan is peppier today introducing Pence.

Pence seems very likable.

Unless you're LGBT.

Kasich as well.

Holy shit. In a sane world this would be the end for Trump, but we've passed that line dozens of times before, so...

I doubt most of his supporters know what NATO is.

I read the whole article where I found that quote. The emphasis was with the problems US is having we need to focus that. I took it, as he will focus on fixing the US. Was trying to make a point he'd do something to help the nation.

So, turns out that the GOP KNEW what was going to happen, the reporters KNEW what was going to happen, and they let him do it anyway. Color me confused.

Jon Murray on Twitter: "I like that she's got a source. Cuz lots of reporters have embargoed copies of Cruz's full text. https://t.co/VwyQyOnoTB"

You're willfully leaving out what he said. He didn't just say he wanted to renegotiate NATO, he said that in the event of an attack, the U.S. may not do anything to honor its NATO commitments. That's incredibly reckless.

Cleveland Police: Protester Lights Himself On Fire While Trying To Burn American Flag

:devil:

Thought you covered that. I was saying he seemed to have good intentions. Be great if America was able to help everyone but that may not be possible in current situation. I don't get this being as reckless as it is sad. Reality sucks sometimes.

Do you know what NATO is?

Treaty with several several countries...... we need to be involved in nato but not as much as too expensive. Feel he was trying to make a statement that he'd work on US. And if something came up to put US at risk he'd look at it without jumping into it...... I seemed to get the feeling people thought he'd start wars but here it seems he is trying not to start wars but gets slammed. Ironic.

Not that confusing really.

Remember that, prior to Trump upsetting their apple cart, Cruz was likely THE most hated man for the GOP leadership. This was about letting him cut his own throat & end his political future forever.

The response I'm seeing, even from some very lukewarm Trump maybe voters, has been overwhelmingly that Cruz came off as a lowlife.

I don't think he ever gets to rehab that image no matter what happens in November.

or a teacher. or in need of health care. or a fan of Disney movies.

In this scenario, it'd be Putin actually starting the war. It'd just be Trump committing treason by not abiding by agreements that the country has committed to upholding.

Cruz came off fine. The Trump supporters came off like whiny children that fear the idea of voters voting with their conscience.

Another example of why he is not qualified.

You want the US to be involved in NATO but not have to abide by the treaty? NATO isn't something you go in half-assed over.

I honestly thought NATO was the one thing both parties agree on. That it was good to have a ton of Western countries have each other's back in the event of a war. Or just as a deterrent to other countries looking to expand their territory. And an added benefit is not having a bunch of these countries starting up their own nuclear programs.

The only negative talk of NATO I've heard is from kooks like Ron Paul.

I did find it funny that Laura Ingraham called out the media for being bias and then watched as the media tried to turn her wave to the crowd into a Nazi salute. Like maybe give it an hour before proving her speech right.

Talk about giving Russia carte blanche to keep reeling in those former SSRs.



Okay, look. NATO isn't just "a treaty." Its purpose was three-fold.

1) prevent the rise of aggressive nationalism in Europe from occurring again
2) serve as a bulwark against Russian/Soviet aggression. And in that sense, it kind of went hand-in-hand with the Marshall Plan - give east/central Europe an alternative to the Russian/Soviet sphere of influence.
3) Install the United States as a superpower counterweight to the USSR and put an end to the isolationism of the first half of the 20th century. By obligating the US to the defense of Europe, the idea was that aggressor states would be less likely to initiate conflict because the United States wouldn't sit out the first 2-4 years of the war as it had done twice before. And, unlike 1916 and 1939, the United States had The Bomb. An extension of the nuclear umbrella to protect non-nuclear European states.

With the end of the Cold War, #2 went away for a while. But that's essentially what it was - the United States guaranteeing Europe's peace. "Look to the West, and don't fear the Russians."


Democrats and Republicans agree on something! Stop the presses!


It's not treason. The Constitution defines treason pretty narrowly: giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States, or taking up arms against the United States. "Somebody from an ideology I don't like doing a thing I don't agree with" isn't treason.

The other thing about the North Atlantic Treaty is it compels a response from member states, but that response needn't be military. Member states are at their discretion as to what response is best. A President Trump could go deeper with economic sanctions and call it good, if he wanted to. He'd be technically fulfilling the United States' obligations, although it wouldn't be a good look. It would call into question how serious the United States would be about other treaty obligations.

It wouldn't be an abrogation, nor would it be treason, but it might be an embarrassment.

Awwwww...

Same here, although to be fair, many of the "very lukewarm Trump maybe" voters that I know already couldn't stand Cruz either. They were very firmly Kasich/Rubio supporters.

And that said, I'm still in the place of not seeing how the party can remain one. Remove Trump, and there's still a pretty big split there. If the Dems could refrain from running someone as easily vilified as HRC, it seems to me that a Cruz type would have a hard time getting the Rubio/Kasich type supporters to show up, and vice versa for a Rubio/Kasich type with the Cruz type supporters.

Agreed, and in addition I think that the Dems will survive this election cycle but have a split of their own coming down the road.

I'm not even 'lukewarm' on Trump. To the extent there was any possibility of my voting Republican, it was going to be Rubio or possibly Kasich...but only if McConnell stopped with the SCOTUS dickery. That's the irony, right? If he doesn't put his foot down in February and go "no hearings no nothing fuck the PO-POTUS," and Rubio or Kasich wins the nomination, there's a non-zero chance I would have voted for one of them in the general.

I don't care for Hillary Clinton.

But I'm fucked if I'm going to reward his dickery by voting for a twatwaffle like Trump.


If a Trump win could calm the crazies going forward, that might save the GOP, but honestly, I think it would just embolden them. I think the writing is on the wall no matter what, and the question is what emerges and leaves the Tea Party rump behind. Also, how soon.


We're overdue for something like that, as I mentioned earlier, and I'd agree that it's unlikely to be one party splitting and the other chugging blissfully along. That said, I'd not be shocked if the GOP had their schism this cycle and the Democrats followed suit in the next decade.

The millennial generation is going to cause a political earthquake in the next ten years on both sides of the aisle, I think. Young Republicans aren't as vested in the racial/sexual side of politics as their parents were, and young Democrats are more welcoming of socialism than their parents.

It's going to make for interesting times.

I see it as a stand for America by him. Also that he wants to change things and expect others to pull more of their weight..... I don't even see this as much more than talk from him to show he will work on this country. He wants people to get riled up about him making a change.

We are not the same country as we were back then. Treaty needs to be updated. Get other countris to pull more weight. It's a great plan.

Explain "pull their own weight".

:popcorn:

Other than his one tweet, Trump actually seems to be playing the Cruz thing pretty well. Or even stronger, really taking advantage of it by taking a bit of the high road.

Edit: And he appears to have deleted that tweet.

And more substantively, the NATO thing is fairly chilling, but like the influence of social media, I think the likelihood of it having any real impact is pretty small.

NATO Members’ Defense Spending, in Two Charts - Defense One

https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/...0904115706.jpg

Two separate charts I found real quick.

I'd qualify that as a vast majority of NATO countries "not pulling their own weight." AND I'd qualify that as the US spending way too much on Defense (especially relative to their allies).

I like Trump's stance/comments on NATO. It shows a hesitancy to throw Americans into whatever calamity is happening on someone else's doorstep. NATO is very one-sided. It's us giving aid to other countries in the event they are attacked. But no one attacks America, so when would Europe come to our aid to make this a mutually beneficial arrangement? NATO is Europe getting into trouble and America footing the bill in the form of financial and military aid - those come from you and I and I support Trump's take on this. In order to make America great again you need to weigh the risk/reward of us automatically engaging in other countries' conflicts. That's the kind of pro-America perspective and dialogue that got Trump the republican nomination. Trump doesn't get to this point without talk like that - I just hope he follows through on all of his extreme views and doesn't turn into Obama from 2008 with all his "Change" that never amounted to much. I'm willing to give him a shot, he should get 4 yr's and if he falls flat on his face then no need to reelect him.

I learned Monday that the nations of NATO are not bound or obligated to defend another member from attack militarily. Instead, there is a meeting in which the nations declare their intentions of support:


In the event of an attack on the Baltic States, which NATO nations would declare war? Which would not? I see Trumps's comments as a message to other member states to step up their commitment to the organization.

One of the key items in negotiations is sending signals. Sometimes signals are meant as an ultimatum, other times they are meant as a means of setting up a meeting.

He's also sending signals to Russia that taking the Baltic States may not cost much. Of course given his praise for Putin, his campaign manager that was on the Kremlin's payroll, and his quiet watering down of support for Ukraine, this is all part of a pattern of support for Putin.

So basically Trump is Neville Chamberlain. :D

There is a world where we can both take care of America and continue to be the leader of the free world. Turning our back on Europe, especially in the era of Putin and ISIS seems to be a monumentally bad idea.

NATO is more important now than it has been in 25 years.

Sidebar: We could actually afford to both "take care of our country first" and keep up our current lines of defense if we had actual tax rates that were in line with the rest of the developed world. But that's apparently as much of a non-starter as is gun control, so I doubt that will earn any discussion.

If Norway and Sweden had a skirmish, I could see that coming into play. If the Russians roll tanks into a member state military action is absolutely the expectation.

I was reading a piece a few days ago arguing that we've forgotten the importance of a stable Europe due to the dying off of the WW2 generation. Reading this thread makes me buy that argument.

Agreed.

Looking back, I wish Rubio had Jeb Bush's coffers to help prepare him for prime time. Which just goes to prove he was a bit green for this election cycle. We may not see him again, but if he can come back more polished, it would make me feel better about a unified GOP push. As of now. This is basically like the racing world craziness of the 90's.

There once was balance between NASCAR and IRL. Then the IRL split into two and one league finally folded and the other is a shell of its former self and NASCAR dominates.

Political schisms seem healthy but ultimately I guess it leads to a monopoly...which is very very bad in the long run.

We may or may not be close to a long term monopoly on the White House, but in every other measurement the GOP is strong. They control the House, Senate, a majority of statehouses and governors, etc.

The country is ideologically diverse, and our system demands a center-left party and a center-right party. Perhaps the GOP will falter and something else will take its place, but that something will eventually look a lot like the GOP.

A godfather does not invite attacks upon his friends.

Honestly, I think a non-endorsement by Cruz was a huge win for Trump. If Cruz endorses, Trump, people just poo-poo it as everyone jumping on board with the winner. Cruz refusing to do so shows well for Trump. He gets the benefit of being someone who allows people to speak despite not being on board with him. It also totally destroyed Cruz's political career, which has to delight Trump to no end.

He's viewing these countries not as friends, but shop owners. He's looking for more protection money.

Yes, but the godfather would not convey that message publicly. It's something for Clemenza to handle in private.

Long term -- assuming Trump loses, does Kasich or Cruz come out better?

I'm not sure I would say Cruz telling his followers not to vote for Trump is a huge win. I'm far from an expert, but to me a huge win would've been him saying something like, "We've talked, I've come to know him better, he believes in principles we think are important, and that's why I'm giving my endorsement to Trump and will campaign for him in the fall."

I think that depends on how much he loses by. If he loses Ohio by a narrow now which causes him to lose the presidency, then I think a lot of blame will go to Kasich and Cruz. It'd be like the liberals and Ralph Nader in 2000. People will be saying "if only they had lent support we would have won."

But if Trump gets crushed, then the Ted Cruz camp will be able to say "I told you so, we need to get back to the constitution and have a candidate that in good conscience the American people can vote for."

Just my layman's opinion.

We are taxed at a rate that is more than enough to advance our country and improve the lives of its citizens. Why should I be taxed more just so we can afford to additionally provide for other countries? Bad argument on your part. The ppl who are pro-Trump, myself included, are not going to want to hear about helping other countries before American citizens are assisted. Wrong crowd my friend.

Just hoping all of Trump's talk isn't rhetoric. Build that wall, kick out illegal aliens and let every country with alligator arms start footing the bill.

Where did you read that we would take care of other countries first? Do you know what foreign aid is as a percentage of the federal budget?

But wait, I thought "All Lives Matter." I guess that should be changed to "All American Lives Matter."

The problem is many in NATO have neglected their military because of the alliance.

Not knowing what Trump is thinking, but saying that the US will have to look to internal affairs could be a message to alliance members to start increasing their military funding.

All American Citizen Lives matter.

Personally, I want the President to put American interests first. That starts with the well being of its citizens. However, just like I do not give my kids everything they want to teach self reliance, discipline (to get what they want by saving, etc.), and the value of hard work, the President does not need to give a blank check to citizens for everything that feels good I the moment either.

George W Bush thinks he may be the last Republican President:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/19/politi...ent/index.html

Like the stability and sovereignty of our key trading partners, also known as markets for our goods & services?

No to mention they provide the majority of the goods that drive our economy. The days of 'going it alone' are a thing of the past.

We don't support NATO for charity. We do it because it's in both our long and short term interest to do so. Since the creation of NATO Europe has enjoyed a length of relative peace unlike any it history. That benefits us, both in terms of market stability and by not having to spend for war and war's aftermath.

I actually agree with the idea that we shouldn't have so cavalierly included former Soviet client states. Starting a nuclear war over Estonia, for example, really is stupid. But, alliances don't work if one partner refuses to honor the terms, and breaking NATO would put every other alliance at risk.

The Russians would love this, and are already probably making plans to test the limits of a Trump admin. We've forgotten not only the benefits of a stable Europe, but also the dangers of Russian aggression.

Ask the original America Firsters, putting America first can quickly lead to putting Americans into a European war.

The presidential race as choreographed by WWE.

Same argument I was going to make as JPhillips above. We're not in NATO for the good feelings it gives us. Most actually believe that advancing American interests abroad is good for advancing the lives of American citizens as a whole.

Being a part of the global economy and furthering capitalist interest abroad = $$$ for domestic companies. How many want to do business in unstable markets with unstable governments that are constantly fearing for their borders?

We don't keep this giant military around because we like supporting other countries. We are supporting other countries only insomuch as it furthers our own self-interest.

Seems like both a good argument AND the right crowd, my friend.

Yes, that's a good point. My point on the foreign aid budget was separate and addressed the tangent that Ned seemed to go down that we weren't putting America first. Even if you include NATO as foreign aid, the amount we spend there and on pure foreign aid is so miniscule compared to our government spending.

Here's the thing. The small shit adds up too. Might add up slower than the big shit, but it adds up all the same. It's bad fiscal planning to simply ignore the smaller sources of waste because it's such a miniscule piece of the pie. Pissing away a million here and a million there is probably easier to fix anyway, and, again - it all adds up.

(For the record, I'm not advocating a complete ending of foreign aid and/or NATO spending here - I'm saying this in a more broad term. It always bugs me when people say "oh, but that's just only a few million/billion dollars, it's such a tiny problem").

We're still basically the largest military power in the world and the guarantor of peace for most of Europe. France and the UK have nukes these days, but those nukes have an outsize place in their military considering respective spending by the US and either of those two.

But that's the thing. This isn't a small shit type deal. It's a big deal to have a stake in world affairs and it doesn't cost us very much. Cut foreign aid to zero and we'd look like schmoes and wouldn't have even made a scratch in the federal budget.

Over/Under on the amount of times Trump refers to Cruz in his speech (including pronouns)?

Please note my addendum to my original post.


What I'm saying is there are almost certainly MANY places of waste in every facet of our government spending that can and should be examined. How much of an impact it has on our overall debt should not matter - if you can eliminate points of waste, you should. I'm not specifically targeting foreign aid and / or our contributions to NATO. I'm specifically targeting the general idea of "this is such a small thing, why do we care if it's wasteful?"

Though, I do have issues with sending aid to certain countries that are otherwise hostile to us and I also think we should be heavily pressuring NATO members to contribute more to their own defense spending. But, as I said, this is a far different thing than "cut all foreign aid / cut all foreign troops".

"HE MADE A PLEDGE AND THEN HE WENT BACK ON IT!!! I TOLD YOU HE WAS LYIN' TED!!!!!1"

Wait a minute....what's that music...it can't be...IT IS! Ted Cruz is in the building! He rushes towards the ring!

Trump tries to run through the stands, but wait...no! Kasich is there waiting for him! Here comes the double suplex! Trump's out cold! It's all over!

-arena goes dark-

What's this ... what now?!!?!?

-cue the pyrotechnics and lights-

OH MY GOD! It's Hillary in the ring! She's applauding Cruz and Kasich! They were in it together the whole time! God almightly, what have they done?!?!?

Majority? Is that true? The majority of the manufactured goods in this country come from other countries?

Here's how I arrived at the number:

The US GDP last year was ~$18.5 trillion. Making up that number, about 77.5% was for services, 20.8% was manufacturing, and the rest was agriculture. Which means the share of GDP for manufacturing was around $3.8 trillion.

The US imported $2.35 trillion worth of goods last year and exported $1.62 trillion. It isn't an exact number, because it isn't a 1 to 1 relationship, but if you compare imported goods to US manufacturing output minus what we exported, it is a bit more than half.

Except they really don't have much of a bench that can't get tarred with it.

Association with HRC or Obama is more than enough for vilification.

And before anybody thinks I'm exaggerating too much, remember that one of the more common in-party tactics during primaries is to try to find a picture of the (R) incumbent with either of them. It could be the world's most innocent photo op, virtually accidental (and entirely incidental) but that's a potential issue.

Okay, that is in value. There are more ways to look at the term "majority." And in fact, value wouldn't be the first way, actual number would.

It's not a big deal to me, just that the original statement could use a lot of clarification if you're going to break it out in an Internetwarz political discussion.

Actual number would likely be much higher in favor of foreign, since most manufacturing of consumer items (clothes/shoes/electronics) comes from overseas, where the items the US manufactures are tilted towards high ticket items like planes, automobiles, construction equipment, etc. The anecdotal evidence is the joke about trying to find something at Wal-Mart that wasn't made in China.

I'm trying to see if there is a place to go for the number of items to validate my theory on quantities, but I haven't found one yet.

Question: Does the definition of "great" in Make American Great Again include being the world's most influential superpower?

Whether it's most, half, or less than half, it's pretty clear that the US gets a significant portion of goods from overseas. So not only is "fuck the rest of the world" a selfish and morally reprehensible foreign policy, it's also really damaging to the US's own self interests.

And that differs from the Middle Eastern war how?

I think the Neville Chamberlain finger is more accurately pointed in the direction of Reince Preibus and the others from the trump-appeasement wing of the party.

Wait, are we really talking trash about NATO after the US invokes article 51 after 9/11 and every NATO country provided aid in the attack against Afghanistan? To now back away when others are at risk is really shitty. What, a we got ours so screw you attitude to our allies? That will really help us in making alliances in that future...

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

If anyone is interested in reading Trump's speech ahead of time.

Full text: Donald Trump 2016 RNC draft speech transcript - POLITICO

No one attacks America because we have an enormous strategic advantage because of Europe. If a country like Russia started a war, we could launch attacks through Europe. We could utilize those countries for resources.

Do you realize this is why we had it out with Cuba half a century ago? It would have been a huge military advantage for the Soviets to be able to setup camp 90 miles off the coast of our country. Just as it would be for potential enemies to form strategic alliances with Canada.

Also most of our defense budget isn't part of direct NATO spending. We choose to spend that kind of money to be a "global superpower". If Trump wants to cut our defense budget I can understand that. But his stance has been wanting to build a 2,000 mile wall along the Mexico border and send more ground troops into Iraq and Syria. Proposals that don't exactly scream "cutting of the defense budget". So what is it?

My guess is Trump and most of his supporters don't know what NATO is outside of the first lines of the Wikipedia entry.

I think given the praise for Putin, the ties of the campaign manager, the quiet changes to the platform, and now the proposed abandonment of NATO, we have to entertain the very real possibility that Trump is more ideologically aligned to Russia than western Europe.

Can this guy shut up? Enough of the yelling.

He also praised Erdogan's handling of the coup. Which shows his lack of knowledge of foreign policy when his campaign has been attacking Islam and Sharia Law from the start.

So I was very interested to hear that one of the speakers tonight is going to be Peter Thiel, openly gay co-founder of Pay Pal and a Republican. He's apparantly going to take the RNC to task for their anti-gay plank in the platform and stance over the years towards gays. Be interested to see how the crowd reacts, especially if he comes right after Jerry Falwell Jr.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...an-convention/

For everyone who crapped on the RNC for having Scott Baio speak, the DNC has a bunch of actors doing the same at their convention. I'm guessing the same people won't be making fun of that.

Would totally vote for the guy Ivanka is describing.

Trump isn't very good at reading from the teleprompter.

Would totally vote for Ivanka.

C'mon, though, he's not even a respected actor. Charles in Charge, and Chachi and ????

why does trump hate america

The girl from Neighbors 2 that much better?