Let's not kid ourselves by pretending Trump has a foreign policy. Of any kind.
he's the only candidate so far to at least acknowledge that we cannot simply cast aside a negotiated settlement, even if the terms are not to our benefit (assuming he even read the agreement). every other candidate has come out on record as either completely opposing the deal and/or proclaiming their first act will be to pull the US out of it. diplomacy exists for a reason, and it's not clear the other candidates understand how it should be used.
That's not so much moderate as it is populist, unless you've got a plan of how to pay for it. Which nobody does.
they both pay for themselves, the funding issue is where to draw the line on how they are funded. currently only the first $120K-ish of income is taxed. if this cap is lifted, the funding question answers itself. no republican will ever admit to this, because it angers the billionaires they rely on to run larger campaigns. Trump is the only republican to say there should be no change in both plans, everyone else will either privatize it or put severe limits on benefits and/or access to benefits.
hey, it's better than the outright lies Fiorina, Cruz, Carson and Huckabee have put out there. at least he isn't comparing abortion to slavery and murder?
That's like saying besides the murder, torture and slavery, Al-Baghdadi is the best ruler in Syria.
of the republican candidates, i think only Rubio and Kasich have not come out with overtly racist rhetoric. they are all fascistic in some regard, though. all believe government should be privatized, and all believe kowtowing to billionaires is the answer to the US economic situation and income inequality. not one single republican candidate has said we should bring in refugees from the Syrian conflict, much less do something about the various problems WE created in the Middle East -- except to actually do the same things Obama's already done but ...louder this time? maybe with a little more feeling?
That hardly applies to Bush. Not that I really expect him to get anywhere at this point, but out of all Republican candidates, he seems about the least likely of them all to be in it for the fame. Except maybe Graham, who deserves a lot more attention than he gets.
yeah, sure. Bush already has his family connections so he doesn't need the fox "news" speaking gig, or the right wing radio circuit to boost his already substantial fortune. i will agree that Graham probably could have done better if he had either entered the race earlier, or under better circumstances (i.e. no Trump taking all the air out of the room). all of the rest of them are definitely riding this thing out as far as they can in order to boost their "brand" for their eventual retirement from the race. Trump is still hardly the most far-right candidate in the field, though. he's a little to the right of center of the current crop, but that is not saying a whole lot when they're all pretty much on the far right of the spectrum at a minimum.
i guess my main problem with all of them -- and the US political scene in general -- is that they increasingly remind me of the rise (and assassination) of Pim Fortuyn. xenophobic, fascist rhetoric; denigration of immigrants and refugees; and all in the name of making (country) better. the biggest difference is that most of Europe seemed to be pushing the message "These people are ridiculously intolerant and you should not support them". in the US we get "Both sides do it" -- even though it's pretty much only the republicans that have gone off the deep end (with a handful of dems helping them along). also, in the US we're probably much more likely to assassinate the opposition viewpoint to the republicans, so ...yay us?
"That's the trouble with political jokes in this country... they get elected!" -- Dave Lippman
- 25/11/2015 05:02:05 AM
1047 Views
*NM*
- 25/11/2015 04:38:21 PM
228 Views