Something Else Than Conservative

[Kathianne]

Interesting:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2582703


Byron York: As vote nears, a more radical Trump emerges

By BYRON YORK (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/author/byron-york) (@BYRONYORK (http://twitter.com/ByronYork))
• 2/8/16 12:04 AM

PLYMOUTH, N.H. — The loudspeakers blasted the Beatles' "Revolution" when Donald Trump took the stage at Plymouth State University on the Sunday before the New Hampshire primary. It's a new choice for Trump, and it doesn't matter that the lyrics suggest caution; the title seems to increasingly fit the shattering of Republican political orthodoxy Trump is promising should he win the White House.


In a nearly one-hour speech, Trump railed against pharmaceutical companies. He railed against oil companies. And insurance companies. And defense contractors. And he set himself against a political system that he said allows big-money corporate "bloodsuckers" to control the government with campaign contributions.


"Whether it's the insurance companies, or the drug companies, or the oil companies, it's all the same thing," Trump said. "We're never going to get our country back if we keep doing this."


Trump promised to allow the government to negotiate drug prices — a common position among Democrats but rarely heard at nominally Republican events. He said he would not raise military spending, arguing that the nation's defenses can be improved without increasing its already huge Pentagon budget. He promised tough sanctions on American companies that move jobs overseas.

...

There were portions of Trump's Plymouth speech that sounded like Bernie Sanders, if Sanders had Trump's sense of showmanship. In fact, Trump mentioned Sanders favorably, saying they agree on trade. Trump also said Sanders is correct in his charge that Hillary Clinton is compromised by the big-money contributions she has accepted — a charge the billionaire developer aimed at his Republican rivals as well.

...


The only way to clear the mess in Washington, Trump argued, is to elect a president who is so rich he doesn't need anybody's money. "I think self-funding is a big thing," Trump said. "I'm the only one that's self-funding, Democrat or Republican. everyone else is taking from — I call them the bloodsuckers."

...

[Perianne]

Thanks for your link to a great conservative, Byron York. I love him.

From the link:


But all that misses the bigger picture. The man leading the Republican race is doing so on a platform that would blow up the Republican Party as it now exists in Washington. If Trump is bringing new voters into the party, he's doing it by promising to make the party virtually unrecognizable to its members today. If he were elected president and did what he says he will do — and many, if not most, political insiders cannot get their heads around even that possibility — Trump would be an astonishingly disruptive force in Washington. Of course, that is exactly what his voters want.

And that IS exactly what we want from him: to blow up the losers who lead the party now.

[Kathianne]

Thanks for your link to a great conservative, Byron York. I love him.

From the link:



And that IS exactly what we want from him: to blow up the losers who lead the party now.


You do not disappoint. :cheers2:

[Abbey Marie]

This is the conundrum that is Trump:


He said he would not raise military spending, arguing that the nation's defenses can be improved without increasing its already huge Pentagon budget.
...


Hasn't Trump said in debates that he would build up the military again? I am uncomfortable with that statement as it is left. Did he expound on it? If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say he thinks he will use his powers to "deal" to get other countries to pick up the slack on defenses in their theaters.

[Kathianne]

This is the conundrum that is Trump:



Hasn't Trump said in debates that he would build up the military again? I am uncomfortable with that statement as it is left. Did he expound on it? If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say he thinks he will use his powers to "deal" to get other countries to pick up the slack on defenses in their theaters.

He'll make a deal, a wonderful deal, with the military/industrial complex, he'll tell them what they can 'charge.' ;)

[NightTrain]

This is the conundrum that is Trump:



Hasn't Trump said in debates that he would build up the military again? I am uncomfortable with that statement as it is left. Did he expound on it? If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say he thinks he will use his powers to "deal" to get other countries to pick up the slack on defenses in their theaters.


IMO, other countries do need to pick up the slack... and they've all realized that after the vacuum that occurred 7 years ago. The world's gone to hell in a handbasket since then.


But yeah... the only way to have the best military in the world is a massive amount of funding. I don't think you can have the best weapons systems in the world like we have now and a reduced military budget. We all know the Feds can't do anything economically and our military is no exception.

Trump should be up front with that and simply say that having the best military does not equate with reducing military spending - and especially that R&D that keeps our guys fitted with superior weapons & gear.

[tailfins]

Interesting:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2582703

I have seen political analyses show Trump and Sanders competing for the same groups of voters.

[Perianne]

I have seen political analyses show Trump and Sanders competing for the same groups of voters.

They are the voters who are unhappy with the current America. Count me in that group, though I am in neither Trump's nor Sanders' camps.

[red state]

IMO, other countries do need to pick up the slack... and they've all realized that after the vacuum that occurred 7 years ago. The world's gone to hell in a handbasket since then.


But yeah... the only way to have the best military in the world is a massive amount of funding. I don't think you can have the best weapons systems in the world like we have now and a reduced military budget. We all know the Feds can't do anything economically and our military is no exception.

Trump should be up front with that and simply say that having the best military does not equate with reducing military spending - and especially that R&D that keeps our guys fitted with superior weapons & gear.

I agree and disagree with that logic. I'll use the education system as my basis for disagreeing. We throw TONS of money at a problem. We can start by raising the pay and the level of accepted participants within our military to fix a problem and we can also fix the homosexual, anti-Christian and inexperience of leaders problem we have in our ranks. Still, I agree with you in that I'd rather throw money at the military than on Obama Phones or Planned Parenthood. Would also like to see us establish a base on the moon and stop hitching rides as we now do cuz I truly see this space travel as a weakness in our military operations. I believe this was intentional (just like everything else B.O. has done to destroy this Nation).

[Drummond]

I think it very important that your military be very well funded. Of course .. it needs to be strong, robust, have the capability of meeting any demands it needs to satisfy.

But that's not to say that Trump may not be correct. What if he has ideas about improving its effectiveness from existing resources ? Is there anything in the US Armed Forces that is wasteful, where resources already under their command can't be rejigged to increase efficiency ?

I want to hear more about why Trump says what he says, before rejecting his thinking outright, or grafting my own views in the place of something that may well have a more insightful basis to it.