« Forget Clinton vs. Trump, here are the 10 Senate seats you should be worrying about | Main | Trump’s charges of a ‘rigged’ election are subversive »

August 08, 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I would argue he also defies the GOP tradition on his stance on trade as the GOP has traditionally been a party for free trade not protectionism. That being said Donald Trump is a narcissists who only cares about himself and really has no principles. I would never support him someone with his temperament no matter what party they supported. I believe you said earlier your preference was Ted Cruz, while mine was John Kasich however no matter what one thinks of their policies both are sane.

The GOP would be best to focus on the down ballot since if Trump wins the Democrats will likely take both houses in midterms (midterms almost always go against the governing party) and in 2020 the Democrats will likely nominate a more left wing candidate who could very well win. At least with a Hillary Clinton win she is more moderate than much of her party and if the GOP can hold both houses there is no reason they cannot retake the white house in 2020 with a more reasonable candidate.


I don't disagree in principle. However, here's the issue. If the other members of NATO have been neglecting their treaty commitments for generations (and they have), what makes you think a back room talk is going to change anything? This is the only way to get them to pony up. AND the US is the most indebted nation in history. Why should they spend another dime?
Agree that you NEVER want to encourage a strongman like Putin.


As an addendum, one of the countries being threatened is Estonia. It has consistently made its 2% GDP commitment to defence. In Afghanistan it also suffered the second highest rate of casualties per population. Second to Canada. I beleive the US was third. Estonia pulls its weight.


Are we to assume that The Canadian Cincinnatus is endorsing Hillary Clinton?


stay tuned...


"Are we to assume that The Canadian Cincinnatus is endorsing Hillary Clinton"

Cannot speak for cincinnatus, but unlike Canada you get three votes in the US and the president actually has far less power than the PM. So one could vote Clinton for president and then Republican for both congress and senate (2/3 of states will have this while 1/3 won't) which would keep her in check. Lets remember the president can only sign into law or veto laws, he/she cannot actually introduce them, that has to come from congress.

I think when it comes to Trump's NATO's comments, the biggest concern is the three Baltic states who are all members of NATO and were once former USSR never mind Latvia and Estonia have large Russian minorities (less so in Lithuania) so there is good reason after what happened in Ukraine, they might be Putin's next target if he doesn't think NATO will respond. Heck even something as simple as Russia attacking the Estonian city of Narva which is right on the border and unlike most of Estonia, predominately Russian could trigger this. I was as a side note just in the Baltics recently and very interesting histories. Not nearly as Russian as most think and a lot more Westernized both in history and culture.


Well said Monkey!


Monkey, in principle the President has far less power. In principle the R's can keep that person in check. The reality of the last 8 years is far different.

The comments to this entry are closed.

e-mail address

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 02/2008

Blogging Tories

  • Blogging Tories