Politics

[CoElkHunter]

What of Tulsi Gabbard?

I too think she would be a good choice. She left the Democratic party sick and tired of all the "woke" BS.

 

[meigsbucks]

I too think she would be a good choice. She left the Democratic party sick and tired of all the "woke" BS.

She is still pro gun control. NRA graded her F. Brady gave her an A.

 

[John Wasmuth]

Journalism died the night they canceled Kolchak: The night stalker…..

 

[CoElkHunter]

She is still pro gun control. NRA graded her F. Brady gave her an A.

Nevermind then. I didn't know that. I WON'T vote for anyone that thinks gun control is anything more than "putting two rounds in the same hole at 25 meters"- Former Governor of Minnesota (and LAST non Marxist) Jesse Ventura.

 

[wesheltonj]

Can the P and VP be from the same state?

No, Trump would have to move his “residency” to another state.

I thought Noem would be the choice, but I did not count on her self-destruction. DeSantis would be an excellent choice for VP.

 

[cash_tx]

Pondering the thought of Trump's potential VP picks, and thinking back to 2015, would anyone here have predicted the Pence choice? I'm pretty sure I'd never heard of the man before then.

 

[Vintageguy]

Tulsi Gabbard’s recent comments on her current stance on the second amendment.

 

[LivingTheDream]

I hope he does pick Tulsi now.

It still amazes me that this what takes Noem out, Obama literally talked about eating dogs in his book.

 

[flatwater bill]

@WAB You are the exception. I appreciate that. I don't ask everyone to agree with me. Only to think for themselves. You have done that. I salute you. Many do not believe that America or NATO had anything to do with starting this war. I do. I also believe that this war could be stopped with a phone call from Tony Blinken, but he is too arrogant to do so. He doesn't give a damn about Ukraine, or the children, only his personal agenda. I had this same discussion with others on this site 3 months ago.....and it is no better now for anyone. We funded another year of war. Perhaps then we can look again for peace. Until then, I must respectfully disagree with you. .......FWB

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

What of Tulsi Gabbard?

Her 2a record isn’t good. That’d be a red flag for me.

 

[CoElkHunter]

You know, awhile back I was talking with my FAR (off the charts) Right Wing father in law about WW2 and how we almost lost the war due to our "isolationist" policies following WW1. He told me that basically if we hadn't "denied" the Japanese OUR oil supplies we wouldn't have to been involved in WW2. I said really? Japan had invaded all of the islands and now China and we didn't have to get involved? Not to mention the Nazis controlling ALL of Europe except for COURAGEOUS Great Britain. I see here a parallel of some of the opinions regarding Ukraine and Taiwan and the same mindset of my father in law and wonder WTF are people thinking! WE saw how well isolationistism worked for us before WW2 and yet some cling to this notion that we shouldn't get "involved" unless we're attacked. Well, we were attacked in 1941 and again in 2001 due to our "laissez faire" attitude about almost everything and yet this "pacifism" mindset still persists. History ALWAYS does repeat itself! I don't get it. Help me understand!

 

[CoElkHunter]

You know, awhile back I was talking with my FAR (off the charts) Right Wing father in law about WW2 and how we almost lost the war due to our "isolationist" policies following WW1. He told me that basically if we hadn't "denied" the Japanese OUR oil supplies we wouldn't have to been involved in WW2. I said really? Japan had invaded all of the islands and now China and we didn't have to get involved? Not to mention the Nazis controlling ALL of Europe except for COURAGEOUS Great Britain. I see here a parallel of some of the opinions regarding Ukraine and Taiwan and the same mindset of my father in law and wonder WTF are people thinking! WE saw how well isolationistism worked for us before WW2 and yet some cling to this notion that we shouldn't get "involved" unless we're attacked. Well, we were attacked in 1941 and again in 2001 due to our "laissez faire" attitude about almost everything and yet this "pacifism" mindset still persists. History ALWAYS does repeat itself! I don't get it. Help me understand!

Actually, Japan's involvement on the side of the Axis powers in WW2 was completely predictable and it was completely avoidable. After being THOUROUGHLY snubbed and disrespected by their US and European allies during the Treaty of Versailles proceedings ending WW1. Japan's soldiers had fought courageously alongside their Allied US and European counterparts and MANY thousands of their soldiers died fighting the Germans in WW1. So, Japan embarked on their own quest to become relevant in the world and the rest became history. WE and our Allies almost lost WW2 due to our complacency and isolationism. Let history continue to repeat itself with Ukraine and Taiwan and see what happens.

 

[CoElkHunter]

Actually, Japan's involvement on the side of the Axis powers in WW2 was completely predictable and it was completely avoidable. After being THOUROUGHLY snubbed and disrespected by their US and European allies during the Treaty of Versailles proceedings ending WW1. Japan's soldiers had fought courageously alongside their Allied US and European counterparts and MANY thousands of their soldiers died fighting the Germans in WW1. So, Japan embarked on their own quest to become relevant in the world and the rest became history. WE and our Allies almost lost WW2 due to our complacency and isolationism. Let history continue to repeat itself with Ukraine and Taiwan and see what happens.

Further, WW2 could have been avoided altogether if the Treaty of Versailles hadn't FORCED Germany to pay $132 BILLION gold marks (more than $500 BILLION today) in reparations. WTF were us and Europe thinking? It's no wonder Hitler came to power amongst a soon to be impoverished and downtrodden German populace. They had no other options.

 

[flatwater bill]

@Red Leg Yes, the same old tired ideas of isolation and confrontation with Russia have led us to this point. It will be interesting (and frightening) to see where they lead from here. Look up exactly what the US paid to bring Sweden into NATO, then reflect on what Ukraine is paying now. Always remember, without an enemy there would be no need for NATO. And they can't let that happen..........FWB

 

[Scott CWO]

Oh good Lord. I would have to pull up the NATO entry from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Soviet_Encyclopedia which fortunately was tossed into the dustbin of history (and the actual trash) even by the Russians in 1990, to find a more biased and false assessment of NATO. It is so patently mendacious, so oblivious of the facts of history, that like much Marxist revisionist history it is difficult to even begin a debate.

NATO was formed because the Red Army snuffed out the post war aspirations of every Eastern European nation but Austria. Try to remember WWII began over Poland's right of self determination (which was crushed by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union - a result the USSR insured would not change in its aftermath). Most of Western Europe lay prostrate as the war ended and the Red Army went nowhere. Perhaps while you are consulting your Russo-Ukrainian friends, you should also have a chat with the Poles, Czechs, Bulgarians, Hungarians, and citizens of the Baltic States who so gladly threw off the Soviet yoke when that empire collapsed - or who died trying to do so in 1956 or 1968. NATO and the United States prevented that same calamity in Western Europe. The very success of the Atlantic Alliance allows ridiculous revisionist nonsense such as this.

You argue that the West is responsible for the Soviet Union's isolation? Only in twenty-first century America could such a thesis have any traction. Communism was as militant and extremist political and cultural revolutionary movement as Islam in the 8th century. It celebrated the trampling of individual rights for the good of the collective state. It represented the antithesis of democratic capitalism. Its extinction is one of the most important historical moments in human history.

Regrettably, that extinction left us with a rump Slavic Dictatorship armed with the nuclear weapons of its predecessor, but with none of its political, cultural, or philosophical power. All it has left is naked military force. You are essentially arguing Russia deserves the right to enslave bordering countries in that tyrannical construct because it wants to do so.

I am sorry, but I will whole heartedly support the aspirations of any people wishing to avoid such a fate. NATO has been revitalized and enlarged not because of some goofy economic theory or defense contractors or lobbyists, but solely because of Vladimir Putin's strategic ambitions and mistakes.

We have a truly powerful Eastern Asian adversary growing in China. We do not need a second threat trying to recreate a Soviet type empire in Eurasia. That is an obvious American strategic interest. The fact that Russians or their apologists do not like it bothers me not in the least.

Yeah like I said, he drank the Kool-Aid.

 

[VertigoBE]

First of all, despite disagreeing with you strongly, I have never once doubted that you honestly believe what you say to be true. I would appreciate that same respect.

Second, while I might hope that a President fails to accomplish certain aspects of their policy agenda, I hope that every American President succeeds as the leader of this nation and the free world. To wish otherwise, in my opinion, is un-American.

The following is by no means exhaustive, and for the sake of brevity, I will only address the things I was hoping Trump would accomplish.

Before I begin with where he disappointed me, I will give him his due…

• I commend Trump for agreeing to move our embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
• I was generally pleased with his tax reform package, though I would have liked to see a much steeper middle class cut.
• While the initial attempts at implementation were downright embarrassing, I was pleased to see Trump pursue and at least somewhat succeed in implementing a travel ban from high-risk countries. Still, I would have liked to see this go much further than it did.
• Ditching the Iran nuclear deal was the right move, as was his overall policy toward Iran.
• I was very impressed with his appointments of Rex Tillerson, James Mattis, Steve Mnuchin, and Gary Cohn. However, this also turned into an area of disappointment.
• His greatest accomplishment, in my opinion, was shifting the political consensus in both parties on China and the border.

And now for some of the ways in which Trump disappointed me…

• As I mentioned above, Trump initially showed signs that he could assemble a uniquely competent administration, including many political outsiders. Unfortunately, his narcissism and petulance got in the way.
• For all his big talk and tariffs, Trump did not deliver a focused strategy capable of seriously denting China’s expanding influence or economic manipulations.
• There did not appear to be any cohesive strategy to or success in bringing jobs back to America.
• Trump failed to deliver necessary reforms to Medicare, though the blame is shared with the entire GOP.
• I had hoped that his desire to be seen as a masterful dealmaker and political outsider would have led him to strike bipartisan deals, even if it meant working around party leadership. Unfortunately, his recalcitrance ensured that no such “grand compromises” ever emerged.
• Speaking of compromises, I had expected him to at least pursue his proposal for expanding mental health access through grants to states in exchange for adopting a national right to carry.
• While Trump was certainly much better than Biden on border issues, I was expecting a much more aggressive crackdown on illegal immigration and reform of the asylum system.
• I had hoped that, at least when the GOP had a governing trifecta, Trump would have pursued a balanced budget and attempted to reduce the deficit. Instead, he did the opposite.
• Perhaps it was my own naivety, but I genuinely believe that Trump would try to be a President for all Americans, and that he might even be able to unite this country like Reagan.

Although a coherent strategy it was perhaps not, I do believe Trump made quite some inroads (or threats) in protecting US jobs or bringing them back on US soil. He threatened with tariffs, reduction of subsidies, even towards the EU he accomplished a more balanced trade deal if I remember correctly.

 

[Red Leg]

I hope he does pick Tulsi now.

It still amazes me that this what takes Noem out, Obama literally talked about eating dogs in his book.

True, but he didn't shoot his 14 month old puppy and then brag about it. Apparently she was into it that day, because she decided to off an offensive goat at the same time (took two shots).

The book is causing additional issues for her because in it she claims to have met Kim Jong Un and stared him down. That meeting never occurred.

I would assume the anecdotes were intended to make her look tough and suitable to be the Vice President. It has backfired pretty badly.

 

[WAB]

@WAB You are the exception. I appreciate that. I don't ask everyone to agree with me. Only to think for themselves. You have done that. I salute you. Many do not believe that America or NATO had anything to do with starting this war. I do. I also believe that this war could be stopped with a phone call from Tony Blinken, but he is too arrogant to do so. He doesn't give a damn about Ukraine, or the children, only his personal agenda. I had this same discussion with others on this site 3 months ago.....and it is no better now for anyone. We funded another year of war. Perhaps then we can look again for peace. Until then, I must respectfully disagree with you. .......FWB

One thing we absolutely agree on is that this war is a tragic waste of life. Russia’s strategy appears to be to deplete UA munitions by sending untrained troops in as easy targets. The loss of life is unconscionable. We have two different solutions, likely both flawed. My strong preference is to give Ukraine what they need to end this for generations to come. Yours is a quick end with a negotiated peace. I may be wrong, but I fear that a negotiated peace at this point simply sets the stage for a future conflict. It would also leave people and lands unjustly under Russian control.

It truly is a shame that we can’t get together to solve these problems with a good bottle of whiskey!

 

[WAB]

True, but he didn't shoot his 14 month old puppy and then brag about it. Apparently she was into it that day, because she decided to off an offensive goat at the same time (took two shots).

The book is causing additional issues for her because in it she claims to have met Kim Jong Un and stared him down. That meeting never occurred.

I would assume the anecdotes were intended to make her look tough and suitable to be the Vice President. It has backfired pretty badly.

Hard to believe that anyone thought that was a good idea. I’ve shot dogs that had gone feral and were tearing up livestock. Even in that situation it’s difficult. Shooting your own dog because it ruined a hunt, seriously? She may survive it in her home state, but any larger aspirations are dead.

 

[Red Leg]

@Red Leg Yes, the same old tired ideas of isolation and confrontation with Russia have led us to this point. It will be interesting (and frightening) to see where they lead from here. Look up exactly what the US paid to bring Sweden into NATO, then reflect on what Ukraine is paying now. Always remember, without an enemy there would be no need for NATO. And they can't let that happen..........FWB

We had almost eighty years without a major conflict in Europe until Russia believed it had the right to snuff out the aspirations of the Ukrainian people. The very success of the alliance has been one of the major reasons revisionists are able to criticize it.

It was Vladimir Putin and the Russian armed forces that broke that peace - no one else. And it is the Ukrainian people who have resolved to defend their right of self-determination.

I am afraid I can't twist my deductive reasoning far enough to interpret what you mean by "what the US paid to bring Sweden into NATO." I will offer, however, the one who actually has paid an awful price for Swedish and Finish membership is Vladimir Putin. His strategic position is far weaker now than two years ago. The Baltic is now a NATO lake and NATO technical intelligence systems directly overlook the Northern fleet and the Russian strategic submarine force. NATO members have upped their defense spending while also aiding Ukraine. Rather than create a buffer he has added nearly a thousand miles of NATO directly bordering Russia and nearly within walking distance of St. Petersburg.

He has no one to blame but his own hubris and the toddies who surround him and provide him with the advice he wants to hear. I accept none of that blame.

Moreover, he is depending upon the continued apathy of his cowed population and army and the perception of inevitable Russian victory - a lie that has been carefully nurtured in the West. However, history tells us Russia can sustain such failure only so long. The Red Army alone lost two out of its three most important conflicts - Poland in 1920 and Afghanistan. Yes, the Red Army was victorious in WWII, but only after being nearly defeated in '41 and after vast support from the US. It is also worth remembering many of those victorious Soviet regiments were Ukrainian and not Russian. Prior to that, Czarist forces were defeated in Crimea and in WWI. The inevitability of a Russian victory is not born out by historical fact.

No, this Putin's war and I can only pray my country has the fortitude to insure Ukraine enables him to reap the consequences it deserves.