The OFFICIAL Trump/HRC/2016 General Election Thread...

[jamil]

IBTL!

 

[ArcadiaGP]

This thread is way long in the tooth fellas.
We like to close them around 5K and this one is miles out.

Going to close it and start a new one when I can get a response from Paul F. as this is his baby.

Look for the grand opening soon.

I like having a single thread like this to just discuss general goings-on of current political figureheads. Maybe we do a mega-thread like some other subforums have (CZ, funny pic, status update), but for "General Politics 2016", or "General Politics 2017", so on... as a catch-all for those sorts of discussions and articles that don't necessarily need their own threads.

 

[jamil]

Fox News isn't "conservative".

If by not conservative you mean not Breitbart, yeah. They're not that. But they do generally present the news from a rightward POV.

 

[2A_Tom]

The President Trump denigration thread #1

 

[chipbennett]

If by not conservative you mean not Breitbart, yeah. They're not that. But they do generally present the news from a rightward POV.

Fox News presents news from both viewpoints. That doesn't make them "conservative". It means they at least make an attempt at being "fair and balanced".

 

[jamil]

Or, the orange god-king worship thread.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Trump: 'We?re going to work something out' with Dreamers - POLITICO

In an interview with Time magazine announcing him as "Person of the Year," Trump didn't go into specifics but signaled that he could find a way to accommodate the Dreamers.

"We’re going to work something out that’s going to make people happy and proud,” Trump told the magazine. “They got brought here at a very young age, they’ve worked here, they’ve gone to school here. Some were good students. Some have wonderful jobs. And they’re in never-never land because they don’t know what’s going to happen.”

I imagine that might not go well with those here that wanted them all deported

 

[T.Lex]

I imagine that might not go well with those here that wanted them all deported

You are wrong.

Whatever Trump decides to do will not only be right, but will be tremendous.

 

[Libertarian01]

You are wrong.

Whatever Trump decides to do will not only be right, but will be tremendous.

Do not forget YUGE!

It will be tremendous and YUGE!



DOUG

 

[Trigger Time]

I don't watch fox because they are republican. I watch them because I can usually get the non BS truth so I don't have to tromp through the latently democrat commentators opinions and a snippet of the news. Like the CBS morning show. If you ever wanna watch a democrat party watch those jerks. Gail is besties with Oprah and she's as dumb as a box of rocks. Always ends up saying something stupid that even her cohost arenlike what the hell dummy?!
always supporting thugs, anti police, anti trump or any republican in office. Always have their top "experts" who are democrats or always end up appointed into a democrat administration. I mean it's blatantly obvious.
on fox most of the times I can't tell if the commentator is a republican or not, they can't help it if the conservative way is the best way. Democrats need to come back right or they will lose all their seats. They've already lost al the power. Time to redraw district lines and do whatever necessary to ensure fair elections. The 8 years of corruption and big govt has ended. Hopefully the next president loves America (which I'm sure he does)
i think that's what gets me the most about obama is that I do not believe he loves this country or its founding principals. Look at who raised him and it's obvious why. Snakes in the garden.

 

[JettaKnight]

Fox News presents news from both viewpoints. That doesn't make them "conservative". It means they at least make an attempt at being "fair and balanced".

Saying "we're fair and balanced" and actually being fair and balanced are two different things.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Trump is tapping Gen. John Kelly to run Department of Homeland Security, sources tell CBS News

Donald Trump picks Gen. John Kelly for Department of Homeland Security secretary - CBS News

Saying "we're fair and balanced" and actually being fair and balanced are two different things.

Compared to the new media emerging lately, I'd say Fox News is about as fair and balanced as it gets.

 

[T.Lex]

Ok. I admit to being a Navy brat.

USMC SecDef
USMC DHS
USMC CJCS

Uh.... this is actually starting to get a bit strange.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Trump: 'We?re going to work something out' with Dreamers - POLITICO



I imagine that might not go well with those here that wanted them all deported

You are wrong.

Whatever Trump decides to do will not only be right, but will be tremendous.

Only Nixon could go to China. Remember that.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Ok. I admit to being a Navy brat.

USMC SecDef
USMC DHS
USMC CJCS

Uh.... this is actually starting to get a bit strange.

I'm good with it

If you've made it to the upper levels of the Corps, it means you are a tough-minded go-getter who does more with less and is unlikely to be PC - I think Trump likes that.

 

[T.Lex]

Only Nixon could go to China. Remember that.

Yes.

Somewhat ironic, now, given the nature of our relationship with China.

But, I hear you. And believe me, if I had thought Trump would be this undedicated to his actual campaign promises, I would've more strongly considered voting for him.

 

[T.Lex]

I'm good with it

If you've made it to the upper levels of the Corps, it means you are a tough-minded go-getter who does more with less and is unlikely to be PC - I think Trump likes that.

I guess I should be clear: I'm not at all opposed to this, conceptually. All of the things you say are true. Except maybe the PC part. To get to General/Admiral in any of the branches, you HAVE to be political, and therefore some version of PC. I will, of course, concede that Marines are by culture less PC.

My issue is more about bringing other perspectives. I'm not drawing any conclusions from these appointments - he may be getting other viewpoints from other sources. I'm just highlighting what may be a pattern or trend. Not good or bad, just a trend.

 

[T.Lex]

Looks like Terry Branstad, Iowa governor, as Ambassador to China.
Terry Branstad 'old friend of China to be US ambassador' - BBC News

"Old friend" to China... he'll need all of that built up political capital, I'll bet.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

This isn't quite true. Those ideas (the currency manipulation and our tariffs) contributed, but fundamentally, they were committed to 2 things: creating manufacturing infrastructure (not just roads and bridges, but actual factories) and buying national debt of other 1st world countries.* The currency manipulation helped, but was really a symptom of their commitment to building things.

They didn't care how many villagers were displaced or died. They didn't care about unemployment rates or election cycles. They built what they needed to build.

I had a friend working over there 10-15 years ago. Even then, China had the capacity to build 100% of the world's consumer goods. Business people would do a junket over there and discuss a possible factory. Next junket over, the factory would be built. It didn't matter if the company was going to pay for it or not, or wanted it, the Chinese knew that if this company didn't move in, another one would. Or they would just start doing it themselves.

America doesn't have that kind of commitment. Can't have, from a political perspective.


* There was a third component: foreign policy. They go/went to "3rd world" countries in Asia and Africa and built stuff for them with the understanding that China would get raw materials and the host country would be a consumer of Chinese goods.

A fair assessment for the most part, but I'm not convinced. I would point out that they have many brand new buildings and factories just sitting empty/idle. The commitment to building things could be said to be a consequence of a command economy and a conscious decision to be the world's major manufacturer of most basic goods. I'm not convinced that the currency manipulation is a symptom rather than an integral part of achieving said decision. Regardless, since we don't actually know the minds of the Chinese leadership, we're both just making educated guesses while looking in from the outside, but it's fun to think about and hear other thoughts on the matter.

I fully agree with your foreign policy point. The U.S. and the Soviets both used to do this and were quite successful. Why we stopped after the Cold War when we should have been moving the ball down the field unopposed is a mystery to me (some absurd non-sense about not wanting to be viewed as "imperialist" perhaps?). The Chinese saw a strategy that worked and stepped in to fill the void and now we are going to have to play catch-up.

 

[T.Lex]

A fair assessment for the most part, but I'm not convinced. I would point out that they have many brand new buildings and factories just sitting empty/idle. The commitment to building things could be said to be a consequence of a command economy and a conscious decision to be the world's major manufacturer of most basic goods.

Yeah, I think we agree more than disagree on "what" happened/is happening. Their command economy made it easier for them to achieve what they've got. Our free market economy (as it exists now) hampers our ability to address it.

The much more difficult question is how to proceed in the best way for the US.

The potential "cures" all have different tradeoffs, different pain points, and different unknown risks.

I fully agree with your foreign policy point. The U.S. and the Soviets both used to do this and were quite successful. Why we stopped after the Cold War when we should have been moving the ball down the field unopposed is a mystery to me (some absurd non-sense about not wanting to be viewed as "imperialist" perhaps?). The Chinese saw a strategy that worked and stepped in to fill the void and now we are going to have to play catch-up.

Agreed.