Republicans for POTUS, 2016 Edition

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?
 
jhmd2000 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's a good one.
 
Hillary really has no major successes she can point to regarding her foreign policy "experience," but she's still light years ahead of every other candidate in that regard.
 
PhDeac said:
Wrangor, which GOP candidate do you take over Hillary in terms of foreign policy experience?
Click to expand...

Experience? None. But that is not what I am saying. I am saying that her experience is a negative in a campaign because she has to defend it. Obama exploited in masterfully. Time will tell if there is a GOP candidate that can do the same thing. As I mentioned in my previous post. Hillary's opponents can say what the WILL do, whereas Hillary has to defend what she has done. If she ever says she 'will do' something that doesn't line up with what she has done she has to rehash all her mistakes. In current politics it is almost better to have less time in the spotlight than more.

Now if you are asking which Pub I think can do a BETTER job than Hillary I would say there are plenty. Experience doesn't equal talent. The reality is we really don't know what the Pub candidates would do yet. I fight an inward battle politically between Rand Paul and Chris Christie. So I WAFFLE a ton. I admit it as a fault, and it comes from a lack of conviction. There are issues I feel very strongly about, and there are issues I am still very much in the growth process. How to handle our foreign policy (soft or hard diplomacy) is something of which I am still very much formulating as I age. I would be hard pressed to name which candidate I feel certain will do better, because I am not sure which direction to go. I am still waiting to be convinced I guess.
 
I see what you're saying, Wrangor, but Hillary has no significant failures unless you're going to go all BENGHAZI!!! on us. Would you rather give the keys to someone who has been a part of an even-handed foreign policy that hasn't started new wars or someone who leads a party of warmongers?

Good Vox article declaring Trump the winner over Fox News. The end part about his staying power makes several key points people are forgetting. You just can't compare Donald Trump to Joe Lieberman like Nate Silver is trying to do.

  1. With the possible exception of Newt Gingrich, those candidates had little experience under the klieg lights of the national media. But before Trump was a politician, he was a reality television star. He has more experience, and more savvy, in front of the camera than any other Republican running for president. He is more than prepared for the spotlight.
  2. Trump is a billionaire who can self-fund his campaign. That matters, as one way parties can break insurgents is to systematically peel off their donors.
  3. Trump's supporters do not seem to care about the normal rules of American politics. They do not care whether Trump is consistent, they do not care whether he is electable, they do not care whether he has supported Democrats, they do not care that he has backed single-payer, they do not care that he disrespected John McCain's war record, they do not care that everyone else in the Republican Party hates him. The Republican Party has launched a series of attacks that should have damaged Trump, and they've gotten nowhere with them.
  4. Trump cannot be embarrassed, shamed, or otherwise brought to heel. He lives, as far as anyone can tell, to attract media attention and prove to the world that he is a winner.
That last bit is, I think, more important than people realize.
Imagine how Donald Trump's life looks to Donald Trump. Sure, he inherits a bunch of money, but he takes that money and makes himself into an actual billionaire, and puts his own name on hotels and casinos and golf course and even steaks. He becomes a best-selling author. He dates and marries supermodels. He becomes a huge television star. And now, with the entire Republican Party arrayed against him and the media doing everything they can think of to bring him down, he is dominating the 2016 presidential race.
Do you think he's going to stop? Do you think he's going to give up on this attention, or be proven a loser before the eyes of the country? Or do you think Donald Trump now believes he can be president, and that everyone who is doubting him is wrong, just like they've been wrong every time before?
Click to expand...
 
Beghazi was a pretty miserable failure. Take away the spin campaign after it and you still have the first ambassador dead since 1979. That is pretty easy to pick on.

IN the end though I think either side could win that argument. Will just come down to who is the more skilled politician. Obama killed her on the experience issue and I think that was what infuriated her camp so much. He turned his inexperience into his biggest strength and she couldn't figure out how to counter-attack. Obama was just better. Will be interesting to see who is the best in the upcoming primaries and campaigns.
 
So far, the GOP doesn't have anybody as good at campaigning as Obama. Rubio could get there, I guess.

It's just amazing to me that Republicans prattled on and on about Obama's lack of experience, yet among the leading candidates in most polls are two business people, a neurosurgeon, a first term senator, and a guy who has been out of politics for 8 years.

538 compares pre- and post-debate polls. Basically Fiorina moved up, Walker moved down, and nobody else moved outside the margins of error.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-post-debate-losers-walker-and-winners-fiorina/?ex_cid=538fb

Told you all that Walker's donkishness would kill him once people took a long at him.
 
Last edited:
PhDeac said:
So far, the GOP doesn't have anybody as good at campaigning as Obama. Rubio could get there, I guess.

It's just amazing to me that Republicans prattled on and on about Obama's lack of experience, yet among the leading candidates in most polls are two business people, a neurosurgeon, a first term senator, and a guy who has been out of politics for 8 years.

538 compares pre- and post-debate polls. Basically Fiorina moved up, Walker moved down, and nobody else moved outside the margins of error.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-post-debate-losers-walker-and-winners-fiorina/?ex_cid=538fb

Told you all that Walker's donkishness would kill him once people took a long at him.
Click to expand...

Reminder: This election will feature Hillary Clinton.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Reminder: This election will feature Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...

Who has shown in 23 years in the spotlight that she has at least some appeal outside of Wisconsin.

 
PhDeac said:
So far, the GOP doesn't have anybody as good at campaigning as Obama. Rubio could get there, I guess.

It's just amazing to me that Republicans prattled on and on about Obama's lack of experience, yet among the leading candidates in most polls are two business people, a neurosurgeon, a first term senator, and a guy who has been out of politics for 8 years.

538 compares pre- and post-debate polls. Basically Fiorina moved up, Walker moved down, and nobody else moved outside the margins of error.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-post-debate-losers-walker-and-winners-fiorina/?ex_cid=538fb

Told you all that Walker's donkishness would kill him once people took a long at him.
Click to expand...

I agree with the Walker comments. I had never really seen him live before the debate. I certainly wasn't a supporter of his entering that debate, but was interested to see how he performed. He is a complete goob. No chance he can win the nomination.
 
PhDeac said:
Who has shown in 23 years in the spotlight that she has at least some appeal outside of Wisconsin.
Click to expand...

The toughest election Hillary Clinton has won happened in _________________________.

BTW, that's not a very flattering picture of Secretary Clinton.
 
Should have known jhmd would come to the defense of a goob looking Pub. That's personal.
 
PhDeac said:
Should have known jhmd would come to the defense of a goob looking Pub. That's personal.
Click to expand...

Ha, I totally misread this initially and I was about to call you out for your taste in men.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top