• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Republicans for POTUS, 2016 Edition

I think most on here either have jobs or are in school where they will be able to acquire a job after graduating (even if it's one of those BKF-hated graduate schools)
 
i worked at BoA for 4 years and agree with 2&2's position. that place fucking sucks.
 
bobknightfan said:
Fair enough. However, you also equated a sales career to "hustling" which....while a widespread opinion....is really not fair. Yes, there are some con artists out there trying to sell things to people that they do not need...and they give the career a bad name. However, if a sales person is selling a quality product at a fair price to a person who needs that product or service, he is performing a necessary service for that person. For example, one of the areas in which I worked involved smaller family businesses with fewer than 25 employees. I convinced many of these small business owners to set up payroll deduction plans in which employees could establish regular contributions to IRA, RIRA or SEP accounts. These plans involved no cost to the employer unless he wanted to match a portion of the employee's contribution. The administrative costs for 401K plans made them unattractive for many small business owners, and without a way to automatically contribute to a retirement plan, many of those employees just never got around to saving anything. The employer had the option to match part of the contribution or not....but even if he decided to do so, it served as a low-cost way to provide an important employee benefit which improved employee morale & reduced turnover...which can be an expensive operating cost when you have to retrain new employees. I don't see how this can fairly be call "hustling." Everybody wins here. The employee provides for his retirement, when he might not have otherwise been doing so. The employer has more appreciative employees & reduces turnover at no or low cost. And I earn a commission.
Click to expand...

08-King-of-Hill-Hank_l.jpg
 
Chris Christie's brain is in inverse proportion to the rest of his body, which is why he won't get my vote in the primary. As this columns points out, the others are not much better.

http://www.cato.org/blog/bad-ugly-gops-foreign-policy-part-1

Chris Christie delivered a formal foreign policy address in which he easily staked his claim to being most committed to violating Americans’ civil liberties through surveillance of dubious value. He charged that his critics were “ideologues,” yet opposed any restraints on the new, far-reaching presidential powers that he demanded.

His foreign policy views are even worse. At age 52, Christie declared: “I don’t believe that I have ever lived in a time in my life when the world was a more dangerous and scary place.”

This is nonsense. As I pointed out on Forbes online: “Christie barely missed the Cuban missile crisis. During his life the Cold War raged, the Vietnam War was lost, the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, and China’s Mao Zedong unleashed the bloody Cultural Revolution. People talked about the potential for a ‘nuclear winter’ from a nuclear exchange. Today the U.S. vastly outspends its potential adversaries and is allied with every major industrialized power save China and Russia.”

“Building stronger alliances” is a “pillar” of Christie’s foreign policy. U.S. foreign policy is based on “partnership with the people and nations who share our values,” he explained. Like the totalitarian Saudis, brutal Egyptian military, and dictatorial Central Asian states?

Moreover, America’s friends can defend themselves. For instance, South Korea has 40 times the GDP of the North; Japan possesses the world’s third largest economy. Europe has a larger GDP and population than America and multiple of those of Russia.
 
Thanks for posting. Good column. Both primaries should have a debates focused on specific issue. Foreign policy should definitely be one of them.
 
Christie sounds pretty strong when he's defending his governorship. He has a good handle on the numbers, the policies, the intricacies of politics - and there's a lot of criticism to counter.

He sounds incredibly weak when he's propping up his role fighting terrorism as some kind of national leader and cowboy who took down scores of terrorists and saved America. His oversimplified view of surveillance programs is just a ridiculous stance to take. You can't just say the ends justify the means so shut the hell up at this point.

The fact that he's oblivious to this plays more to the nearsighted bully politician persona than it does the legitimate presidential candidate one.
 
DCDeac said:
Christie sounds pretty strong when he's defending his governorship. He has a good handle on the numbers, the policies, the intricacies of politics - and there's a lot of criticism to counter.

He sounds incredibly weak when he's propping up his role fighting terrorism as some kind of national leader and cowboy who took down scores of terrorists and saved America. His oversimplified view of surveillance programs is just a ridiculous stance to take. You can't just say the ends justify the means so shut the hell up at this point.

The fact that he's oblivious to this plays more to the nearsighted bully politician persona than it does the legitimate presidential candidate one.
Click to expand...

Good post.
 
Ben Carson is pretty weak on foreign policy.

His argument is "Congress has 9000 hours of political experience combined and look at where that has gotten us."

The guys drawing the largest crowds: Trump and Bernie Sanders (somehow gaining on Hilary).
 
Nobody in the GOP had foreign policy experience comparable to Hillary. They better hope it isn't an issue.
 
PhDeac said:
Nobody in the GOP had foreign policy experience comparable to Hillary. They better hope it isn't an issue.
Click to expand...

She has experience. BZ had experience. Some positive or successful experience would be a plus.
 
avalon said:
But Ted Cruz could beat IS in 90 days.
Click to expand...

Beating ISIS isn't the problem. It's the aftermath. The US military beat Saddam in a matter of hours but the next few years were not so great. Trump said we should go in and beat them and leave. Not sure I think that is a great idea, but it beats going and beating them militarily and staying there for 10 years as a target for bomb throwers.
 
After Massive Contribution To Scott Walker, NBA Owner Will Get $250 Million In Tax Dollars For New Arena

“Government shouldn’t be in the business of financing private sports stadiums,” said the Koch brothers-backed group Americans for Prosperity Wisconsin. “The current deal is based on fuzzy math, complicated accounting and millions of taxpayer dollars. Whether it comes from the state, the county, the city or other authority, these are taxpayer dollars.” The Libertarian CATO Institute added: “Any presidential candidate who believes that taxpayer-subsidized stadiums are ‘a good deal’ shouldn’t be anywhere near the federal Treasury.”
Click to expand...

On the very day that Walker began pushing for taxpayers to foot much of the bill for the new arena, one of the team’s owners donated $150,000 to his super PAC. The investor, Jon Hammes, has donated directly to Walker’s past campaigns, as well, to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars, and this year, Walker hired him as his national finance co-chairman. Another Bucks owner, Ted Kellner, gave $50,000 to Walker’s Super PAC.
Click to expand...
 
PhDeac said:
Nobody in the GOP had foreign policy experience comparable to Hillary. They better hope it isn't an issue.
Click to expand...

David Petreaus had foreign policy experience with actual accomplishments that were positive for America's interest, but he can't be President. Something about mishandling classified intel.
 
There is also a large difference in experience and positive experience. What can she really draw from with regards to her foreign experience? What did she actually accomplish as SOS? She visited a bunch of countries. She hit the Russian reset ... not sure if that was very successful. She was the first SOS to lose an ambassador in the field since 1979. Not sure that is something she wants to discuss. She has experience obviously, but I am not sure what she did that she can really stand on as her cornerstone. She doesn't have anything because (pretty much by her own admission) she avoided any hardline negotiations. She was very soft diplomatically and hands off. I am not saying that as a good thing or a bad thing, just the reality of her time as SOS.

PH - in all honesty, what will Hillary point to as her success story?

OBviously she has done a lot of good things as SOS. I am not saying she was never competent. I just don't know what she can point to that will drown out the pretty glaring negatives that will be brought against her. Here is her profile from "on the issues"

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Foreign_Policy.htm

Here is an OPed that is pro-Hillary that lists her accomplishments...none of them would garner much play in a debate, or in a campaign:

http://mic.com/articles/21829/5-top-highlights-in-hillary-clinton-s-secretary-of-state-tenure

The 5 highlights of Clinton's SOS time listed are:

1. People - People Diplomacy
2. The importance of economics
3. Restoring American Credibility
4. Diplomacy is National Security
5. Texts from Hillary (a social media campaign)

That is incredibly weak and that is coming from a supporter. Perhaps you can list something else. I honestly have looked and cant find anything of note.

From Hillary's web site she lists the following key notes to her foreign policy experience:

1. Led the global effort to sanction Iran (Iran violated the nuclear agreement and the sanctions were a mandatory kick in...that is pretty much fluff)
2. Negotiated ceasefire between Israel and Hamas (Didn't last, won't last, just had to negotiate another ceasefire last year after 7 more weeks of heavy fighting)
3. Reasserted American leadership in Asia (that could mean anything)
4. Championed the rights of women and girls (ok....is that what she is going to go on?)

I just don't see any of those drowning out Benghazi or even the Russian reset in a debate setting. I think she is very weak on foreign policy mainly because she has a record, and the record is pretty empty for the average voter. Opponents can point to what they WILL do, and Hillary is going to have to defend what she has done, or hasn't done.
 
Last edited:
Wrangor, which GOP candidate do you take over Hillary in terms of foreign policy experience?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top