If you can lay out, in advance, specifically what a new war could accomplish, and explain how this new war would not explode into some open-ended region campaign that sucks another trillion dollars out of the public treasury (but into the pockets of the war hawks), maybe then I would support intervention. If the rest of the world were on board, maybe I would support intervention. If it is some cranky old guy pissed off about bullshit on TV, then you can fucking forget it.
I’m doubtful that many people are that silly. Or at least I hope there’s not that many.
It’s not that ISIS/ISIL whatever aren’t our problem, it’s that (a) they’re not just our problem, and (b) every solution generates is own share of foreseeable problems, nevermind the unforeseeable ones.
The argument boils down to debating the merits of each option and arguing over which is “best”, and sometimes we can’t even agree on what best means.
“hoardes”? At least “hoards” is a real world, although it’s the wrong word. The word you’re both trying for is “hordes.” Which is not factually correct, either.
Why do the most likely advocates of “English only” tend to lack knowledge on the language?
Ok, but name anybody else running on the GOP side and I can make the case that they’d be even worse. Trump may be tapping into chimerical fears about immigrants, but he is appealing directly to Americans. The other candidates are bought, their positions appeal only to the billionaires who bought them because that’s where their positions come from. They’re hoping that people have been propagandized enough about ‘liberals’ that they’ll vote R, no matter what garbage the guy stands for.
Just an FYI, but BBC has been saying the last nonpolitician/non-office holder to be nominated by either of the two major parties was Wendell Willkie for the Republicans in 1940. We all know what happened to him.
Back to the OP, what the hell is Trump?
According to Trump, he sort of has military service. In that, he went to a military boarding school where he spent a lot of time with “those people.” He helpfully notes that his military school had more military training than a lot of Americans who actually went into the military.
Had this sort of crap come out of the mouth of anyone else but Trump, it would have been instantly damaging to their standing among Republican voters (many of whom are either veterans themselves, or sympathetic to veterans). Hell, if a Democratic candidate had said it, Fox News would have been beside themselves with glee, as they excoriated said Dem for their words.
But, The Donald? If slamming McCain didn’t hurt him among his True Believers, this probably won’t, either. I now suspect that his ridiculous hairstyle is actually Reagan-level Teflon.
Murdered in cold blood on a pier by an illegal-immigrant rapist bimbo on her period, as I remember.
Actually, it was even worse. Went from being a social conservative and foreign-policy internationalist (the latter bringing him closer to FDR) to compromising on the latter issue for the sake of keeping “the base,” which backfired and lost even the possibility of a close election in 1940. After losing, he neither retired from public life nor used his public identity to bad-mouth the administration: FDR appointed him to follow his original ideals as basically a roving ambassador, and his diplomatic efforts in the USSR and China especially helped to win WWII. This produced a still-readable book, One World, and the enmity of his own party. He also compared opposition to black Americans’ civil rights to fascism, which confounded white Americans of both parties. When he discovered that respect for all people at home and abroad led to political insignificance, he dropped out of the 1944 election, declined to endorse the Republican candidate, and died.
I don’t know, something about the humanity, principles and goodwill of the man keep me from seeing any real similarity with anybody recently.
Le snore.
(Pardon my French)
Yep, the point stands still as others (like SA) are **sleep **about the plight of the refugees.
[QUOTE=Casablanca]
Rick: If it’s December 1941 in Casablanca, what time is it in New York?
Sam: What? My watch stopped.
Rick: I’d bet they’re asleep in New York. I’d bet they’re asleep all over America.
[/QUOTE]
As it turns out Trump does cares about refugees, but only the ones that are Christian, but even there Trump can not help but to lie to keep the support of the nativists and bigots.
Hell, the same could be said about the last half of the 20th century.
WRT the crime rate, SA, here’s a little chart from the FBI. Consider the columns showing murders and non-negligent homicides, 1994-2013. The murder rate dropped in half during that period, from 9.0 to 4.5 per 100,000. The rate’s gone down fast enough that the absolute number of murders has gone down by nearly 40%. So you can’t even say, “well, the rate’s gone down, but there are actually more murders.” There aren’t.
And for your additional edification, between 1994 and 2000, the number of murders dropped from 23,326 to 15,586, dropping by 1/3 in just six years. Must’ve been the good moral influence of the Clinton Administration, because by 2008 murders had increased to 16,465. But by 2013, thanks to the more morally healthy climate fostered by President Obama, murders had dropped again, to 14,196. 
The amazing thing to me is the focus of Trump’s supporters on his past “success.” Never mind that it was mostly given to him, and the rest of it seemed always to come at someone else’s expense (multiple bankruptcies and construction projects that never come off after the investment money clears escrow don’t make you a job creator, but they can leave you pretty well off if you do it right), and most of the growth mirrors the economy, sluggishly, and in the next few years that you’re looking at enough lawsuits to bankrupt you unless you can gain immunity by becoming president or something. That’s all wave-awayable, and we see that happening in this thread.
What I don’t understand, though, given Trump’s supporters’ belief in a man with bizarre political and personal views with respect to immigrants and women, a connsummate outsider with no political experience and who is in no way beholden to the Republican party, because they really, really like a man who can through his own effort and nothing more, improve himself to the degree that he is now well-off, mainstream, and on top of it all, intellectually unassailable (no, he’s not a rocket scientist), is this: why doesn’t anybody promoting Donald Trump promote Ben Carson (who really created success out of nothing) instead? It must be they think the presidency is just beneath him. Or something.
Carson’s up to 18% in the latest Monmouth poll. Looks like he’s doing pretty well without any promoting.
He *is *doing okay, but that’s explainable largely because he’s an admirable man (who does say what are to me some ignorant and repugnant things, and is in any event unqualified for high political office). But the question is, why is he not doing much better than Trump? What, besides gross wealth, is the difference Republicans see in them?
He’s not batshit crazy enough.
Pardon me; obviously I meant, he’s not a rude arrogant jackwagon.
Goodness! I mean, “He’s not being enough of a straight shooter.” That’s what they say they like about the short-fingered vulgarian. All sound and fury, etc.
More directly, he’s not getting as many headlines.
I imagine among the Republican electorate there are still a large number of people who have no idea who Carson is, the same can’t be said from Trump.
Yes, what could that difference possibly be?
GrumpyBunny and Buck Godot, with respect, I don’t think you are isolating the salient difference seen by Trump supporters between the supposed self-made man and the real one. Doesn’t seem to be a matter of style or substance, so far as I can see.
Poor guy probably has PTSD…he should go see the VA about getting medical disability. And he obviously knows what it’s like leading “those people”, so he would be a perfect Commander-in-Chief.