One also has to subtract from that military budget the stupid wall where he is continuing to waste money, not only on areas where the wall was less needed, but also the money tossed to Trump’s preferred grifters.
Keeping the message simple here in San Antonio:
Claiming credit for rebuilding the military is nonsense when you factor in the wanton destruction to our alliances. When our NATO partners have no confidence that we have their backs, that more than negates whatever good he claims about rebuilding the military.
Same for the Jerusalem point, which is not remotely an example of a good thing Trump’s done.
Wasn’t Trump also going to stop the US getting into pointless wars too? - something I actually agree with, if he does it. In which case, why does the military need to be ‘rebuilt’ at all? Shouldn’t you be able to save money by having less military?
He doesn’t want to lose the right-wing warhawk vote.
I don’t understand how your second paragraph follows from your first. Maybe - MAYBE - Trump doesn’t make it, but why wouldn’t Clinton or Biden? Both were obviously quite popular in their parties.
It’s ridiculous before you get to that point. It’s ridiculous because the US military was the most powerful in the world when he took office. What was there to rebuild?
Before some Trumpist says “but look he bought the military this stuff and that stuff” the US military buys some kind of new stuff every year.
It’s a waste of time trying to parse what Trump says. It’s much easier to simply assume that whatever comes out of his mouth (or his Twitter account) is a lie.
Well, folks like Sam are pretty convinced that Obama got us into that war with Iraq, and after all, when 9/11 happened, Obama was just sitting in the oval office doing nothing, right?
Like many other right-wing slogans, it’s what’s called a thought-terminating cliché. There’s no need for further analysis; you just repeat the phrase until you believe it.
The nice thing about these catchphrases is that they act as an anti-shibboleth. As soon as someone uses one, you know instantly that they are not doing any reasoning on their own, just parroting some propaganda.
Lot of Hawks on the left too.
Again, I see how my conservative inlaws consume media. It’s very passive. Fox News just kind of blares in the background “for noise”. My conservative friends just tend to repost conservative news stories on social media, with the presumption that everyone finds them universally outrageous.
In contrast, my more liberal friends and family tend to be more active in their consumption and critique of various news sources, similar to how people on the SDMB discuss stuff.
The presumption in liberals part is that their message isn’t reaching conservatives. Conservatives simply don’t care or they are viewing that message through a completely different lens.
Okay, but that is just nitpicking your preferred terminology in or to avoid the question as to who it is that you would have to choose the people who will be doing the act of governing.
If they are supposed to represent us, then it seems that we would have a say over who they are, which would be democracy. The “watering down” of the senate, as you call it, is in the constitution exactly the same as your right to bear arms or have free speech.
They only work for us if they are answerable to us. If they are only answerable to the select few who get to be in those smoke filled backrooms that you want to bring back, then where do we get a say in how they do their jobs?
And this thread is specifically about the head of state, so… not only is your nitpick about your preferred terminology a distraction, it is also contradictory to your own statement.
And, as to whether you would obligate someone who voted for Kasich in the primary to vote for Trump in the general, you’ve made your answer clear as to how you feel about giving people the ability to choose their “leaders”.
Dictatorships really are the best form of government, as long as you are the one in charge. Their flaws only tend to show up if you disagree with something, anything, the government does, and many who advocate for authoritarianism think that they will always be the one in charge.
Are you sure that you will always be the one in charge? How will you feel if you get your way in that we no longer have democracy, but you don’t agree with the way it is being run?
Or Maurine Williamson.
To be fair, that’s not coming from the budget for bullets and planes, but from schools and infrastructure to support our soldiers and their families.
Worse than that, he wasn’t even in the Oval Office at the time.
What’s his excuse?
Did someone mention the Wall?
Hell, even here in Texas, the conservative newspapers admit they’ve been conned and are calling Trump on his lies about it:
Sure, but Trump doesn’t care about them.
I dunno. If I look at how alternate history might have played out, I don’t think we’d be better off if we were trying to make President Cruz a one term president. I think he would’ve managed to pass some horrid legislation - stuff with more legs and staying power than Trump’s largely ceremonial EO’s, something Trump could never do. And he’d be polite enough to give sufficient cover to the Romney Republicans that have walked away from Trump.
Sure, politically, Democrats would have a harder time, because in that scenario, Republicans governed with a bit of competence.