- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
There's a difference between pivoting and complete belief abandonment. Romney went from tooting his horn on the insurance program that was the foundation of the ACA to saying the ACA was a total mess. Romney turned his back on everything he used to believe just to get the GOP nomination, then he forsook those beliefs to move to the center. A lot of people saw that as completely scummy. And it was.
There's a difference between pivoting and complete belief abandonment. Romney went from tooting his horn on the insurance program that was the foundation of the ACA to saying the ACA was a total mess. Romney turned his back on everything he used to believe just to get the GOP nomination, then he forsook those beliefs to move to the center. A lot of people saw that as completely scummy. And it was.
Often, that's the necessity in party politics. It's going to be the continued norm for quite some time. It's not scummy when the American public demands it that way.
If it remains scummy, then the American public are filled with scum. Even if you want to go that far, I would still advocate for a politician to do it if it is necessary to win.
Popular opinion doesn't change the act of scummy behavior. Furthermore, many people voted against Romney for such behavior. I don't disagree that it's a necessity, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still scummy. When you abandon all that you are to temporary adopt someone else's opinions and then abandon them to get centrist votes.....that's not a sign of a principled leader.
There's a difference between pivoting and complete belief abandonment. Romney went from tooting his horn on the insurance program that was the foundation of the ACA to saying the ACA was a total mess. Romney turned his back on everything he used to believe just to get the GOP nomination, then he forsook those beliefs to move to the center. A lot of people saw that as completely scummy. And it was.
The Washington Post reported:
Cuts currently planned to the U.S. Army may pose problems as it takes a leading role in security crises emerging around the world, including the fight against the Islamic State militant group and the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, said the service’s top officer.
Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, chief of staff of the Army, said he is “starting to worry about our end strength,” a reference to the number of soldiers in the service. The Pentagon said in February that it would cut the Army to between 440,000 and 450,000 troops, its smallest size since before World War II. But “the world is changing in front of us” since those statements were made, Odierno said.
Top general: U.S. needs to rethink how much it cuts the Army - The Washington Post
These concerns are expressed in the context of the current fiscal path. As noted previously, Senator Paul's budget proposal called for slashing military spending approximately 19% from current levels.
One article or any article does not conclusively determine if the dod should be reduced
I pretty much agree but I like Ted Crruz a lot to. Like you I would vote for any Conservative candidate and I think that any of the three can defeat "The wicked witch from the east, Hillary .
The security environment drives the requirements for the nation's security posture. Iran's pursuit of regional hegemony in the Mideast (which, in turn, is one factor behind its drive for a possible nuclear weapons capability), the balance of power vis-a-vis Europe and Russia where strategic interests are divergent, China's rise as a great power and possible (but not assured) superpower, myriad extreme Islamist movements with universalist aspirations, state decay or failure in areas where important U.S. interests are involved, etc., are just some of the factors involved. The security environment is anything but tranquil. At the same time, in the absence of the bipolar Cold War struggle, the situation is highly complex. Existing or traditional relationships may or may not be sustained over the longer-term in this environment. Not surprisingly, even reliable American allies such as Japan are looking for better understanding of American intentions as part of evaluating the shifting balance of forces and other trends that are shaping their regional environment. There is no great clamor for American retrenchment in which it slashes its defense budget, retreats from its strategic overseas commitments, and abdicates foreign policy participation on a large-scale basis. Arguments for dramatic cuts in Defense spending and foreign aid are largely fiscal in nature. They are not driven by environmental or strategic requirements.
This prediction ensures a Hilary win. NP said the same thing about the lot of "great candidates" for the GOP in the last two elections....where he proclaimed Fred Thompson the savior of the Republican party, assured everyone that McCain and Romney were going to "trounce" Obama in the election. Anyone else out there wondering who the "great" candidates are among the current sorry lot of front runners for the once strong and proud GOP?
Whats it to you? Are you a troll or do you intend on voting in a republican primary.
Anyone the libs say "guarantees a win for dems". Is probably a good candidate
You can bring in any and every threat out there, why not raise taxes 50 pct to provide for more defense spending. Afterall, its the security environment and what not.
Obama has been encouraging the dysfunctional Congress. Romney would want to work with both parties. Obama and Reid have been ignoring almost everything coming from the Republican side of the aisle and that has not been helpful to the country.
Lots of good candidates in 2016
Jeb Bush
Rand Paul
Mitt Romney
Paul Ryan
Ted Cruz
Ben Carson
Scott Brown
At this point i am leaning Paul or Carson
I like the idea of a president that has done something other than politics. I also share many of the same positions of paul and carson. Not all, but i dont miss the forest for the trees. I would support any of the above candidates tho if they won the primary.
What say you
I don't think Carson is ready yet--he has no government or management experience at all and even the greatest point of view and best attitude won't get things done if you don't know how to get things done. But he would make somebody a great Vice President that would give him good training/experience. Of the group on the poll list, Jeb or Mitt are both the best qualified and Mitt would not come with the baggage of the Bush legacy. I didn't mark a poll option yet though. Will have to think about it.
If I had to name my dream team right now at this minute, it would be Trey Gowdy Pres & Ben Carson Veep.
I don't think Carson is ready yet--he has no government or management experience at all and even the greatest point of view and best attitude won't get things done if you don't know how to get things done.
This is why I don't believe he should be on the ticket. If something were to happen to the President, he would still not be prepared. A senior-level (Cabinet or sub-Cabinet) position, probably in a health-related area given his field of expertise, might be a good way for Carson to begin to develop management/leadership experience in public service.
Not really. If the House actually wanted to get something done rather than just throw up meaningless legislation, has they have been, they would pass pre-negotiated bills. You would recognize a pre-negotiated bill as one that had bi-partisan support (20-40 dems voting with it and 20 or so very conservative members voting against it). Instead, they are passing legislation which appeals only to the right and extreme right side of the party. Such legislation is going to be DOA in the Senate, because it has NO middle of the road (and slightly left of center) appeal. Its not serious legislation.
The reason Reid doesn't take this stuff up is its not serious (like trying to repeal Obamacare 50+ times... that isn't serious).... serious legislation would have constructively amended Obamacare, with an eye toward making it work correctly.
In foreign affairs Rand Paul is an irresponsible loon, and a know-nothing. If he were the Repub nominee I would support Hillary Clinton.
That is incorrect. Besides, the Senate is not even trying to discuss/negotiate/modify any bills, the are just sitting dormant. There is a big huge close-minded road block to most all bills: Harry Reid.
Here is one list of the 387 Bills. There is info on the votes on most of them as well.
Bill Tracker
Thank you for demonstrating how your desire to bomb other countries into oblivion is stronger than your desire for liberty at home.
This is why I don't believe he should be on the ticket. If something were to happen to the President, he would still not be prepared. A senior-level (Cabinet or sub-Cabinet) position, probably in a health-related area given his field of expertise, might be a good way for Carson to begin to develop management/leadership experience in public service.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?