I haven't seen anything too exciting yet. Carson whined about Iowa, Cruz offered a good explanation and an I'm-sorry-CNN-did-this-to-you-Ben apology.
I see the theme of the evening seems to be attacking Rubio by Bush and Christie with Trump getting in a shot or two.
Rubio knows he's the target for the rest of the field. He's trying to hold them off and look for a chance to dent Trump.
I don't see this bunch doing much to take on Trump directly tonight. They may think Trump has it in the bag in NH already. Trump certainly thinks he does.
I don't see this bunch doing much to take on Trump directly tonight.
IF I were advising a candidate,I'd be telling him to do his best to ignore Trump. Make him seem irrelevant,and don't give him a chance to gain the spotlight.
IF I were advising a candidate,I'd be telling him to do his best to ignore Trump. Make him seem irrelevant,and don't give him a chance to gain the spotlight.
I couldn't disagree more.
Trump told us he would bring back waterboarding. "And a lot worse". The other candidates should rightly have started asking what he meant by that.
"Should we rip out their fingernails?"
"Should we skin them alive to get information?
"Should we amputate their fingers, toes, carve up their genitals?"
"If they are hardened against torture, should we torture or kill their family members to make them talk?"
"Should we torture them if we just have some rumors of an attack or do we have to have solid evidence that an attack is imminent?"
Trump also said that in the Mideast (meaning Iraq/Libya/Syria) we should "take their oil". He's said this before.
The people of these countries -- the entire region really -- live off the income of these nationalized oil resources. So questions should be:
"So you intend to invade these countries, garrison them permanently with troops and send in multinational oil companies to extract and ship the oil of Iraq (or Syria or Libya) to the West and to Asia?"
"What will these countries, nearly all of whom subsidize food purchases (bread in particular), do to pay for food? Will you allow the peoples of these countries to starve after you take their oil?"
"Mister Trump, are you running for president or head pirate?"
"Mister Trump, are you a Viking?"
So, no, you will not stop Trump, now or later, by refusing to take him on. And the GOP donors are foolish to give any money to candidates who keep letting Trump skate by so easily.
Jeb was the only one who really took Trump on over eminent domain. Even his attack wasn't all that effective. But this is a very real issue in NH with two big cases involving eminent domain in the state. In northern NH, there is an attempt to build huge power lines across private lands and in southern NH (where a lot of the state's GOP and libertarian voters are) there is an attempt to use eminent domain for a pipeline project to Massachusetts. And NH's own Souter was a vote for Kelo and the Kelo decision itself was about a case of waterfront developers using ED to seize a property (the house was eventually moved to another part of town but the project then fell apart and the now-vacant lot gets used as an illegal dump, mostly to hold leaves from other people's properties in the area).
They should all have been taking a chunk out of Trump's hide on Kelo and the use of eminent domain to enrich private developers like Trump himself and how corrupt the entire process is.
These were the top two chances for the rest of the field last night. They failed to press the case against Trump.
Especially the second one,which I had completely overlooked and ignored. I would only add "TAKE their oil"? Are we armed robbers,or a nation that believes in the rule of law and thinks might makes right,and we can just steal their property? Are you talking about international eminent domain,now?"
#18. To: sneakypete, A K A Stone, Roscoe, BobCeleste, redleghunter, Pericles (#15)
Especially the second one,which I had completely overlooked and ignored. I would only add "TAKE their oil"?
He's mentioned it before in at least one other debate. He's said it in interviews, he's said it to rallies.
He said it several times, just in last night's debate.
If we are going to become the Viking States of America and pirate the world's oil with our military under the Trump Doctrine (and we'll torture anyone we need to in order to get that oil), then it seems to me it is perfectly legit to ask The Amazing Donaldo for the details of exactly how he intends to do these things.
#34. To: TooConservative, sneakypete, A K A Stone, Roscoe, BobCeleste, redleghunter (#18)
f we are going to become the Viking States of America and pirate the world's oil with our military under the Trump Doctrine (and we'll torture anyone we need to in order to get that oil), then it seems to me it is perfectly legit to ask The Amazing Donaldo for the details of exactly how he intends to do these things.
Trump is just talking in the way the rubes can understand. Also, Kasich said he wanted to punch Putin in the nose and Christie said he wanted to shoot down Russian jets in Syria. But let's go after Trump who said he does not have an itchy trigger finger for starting wars in the middle east like the neocons and urges for cooperation with a nuclear power rather than confrontation. Trump's answer about using China to pressure North Korea was spot on.
Do you really think China has much say about what happens in NK ? Whatever influence they have left with the un-Kim is diminishing and most likely already applied .
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/a-snub-for-china-north-koreas-reported- nuclear-test-shows-beijings-waning-influence/2016/01/06/b0d309e9-a5a4-4cd4-b12a- ab352a53c0cc_story.html Development of its nuclear program has given the NORKS a measure of strategic independence from China. China has to be very careful here . They have some economic influence on the NORKS . But if they push that too far and cause a regime collapse ,they will have a failed state on their border with the probable refugee disaster that Europe is experiencing . .
But if they push that too far and cause a regime collapse ,they will have a failed state on their border with the probable refugee disaster that Europe is experiencing . .
I'm fed up with hearing this particular line.
China already has a "failed state" on their border. It's been there for decades. Surely they have noticed by now.
I think China would find a way to muzzle their dog if we informed them that, barring immediate action on their part, we would be forced to help our allies in Japan and South Korea (and Taiwan) to implement their own nuclear weapons programs to defend themselves against the Norks.
China does not want what happened in Eastern Europe to happen in Korea - let us say North Korea fell - the USA would now have a base right up to the Chinese border. So they keep NK around as a buffer state. 99% of NK's food comes from China who send it just enough to not starve. If the USA made a deal saying they would leave South Korea and not be based there and get SK to sign some sort of neutrality treaty then NK would be be done.
If the USA made a deal saying they would leave South Korea and not be based there and get SK to sign some sort of neutrality treaty then NK would be be done.
I agree it would make sense.
Agreeing by treaty among the major powers that Korea will be a neutral country would be a smart solution for Ukraine too.
If the USA made a deal saying they would leave South Korea and not be based there and get SK to sign some sort of neutrality treaty then NK would be be done. I agree it would make sense.
Agreeing by treaty among the major powers that Korea will be a neutral country would be a smart solution for Ukraine too.
It makes no sense at all. South Korea cannot be neutral so long as North Korea exists. Should they become neutral NOrth Korea will march across the border as they did before. You obviously don't understand the intent of a stalinist regime, for them an enemy is to be trampled underfoot and subjected and made slaves of. I heard one nut today suggest that if North Korea would abandon thier nuclear progam they could be brought back into the international community. Obviously doesn't understand that in world terms NK is a stone age society, it isn't their nuclear program that is the problem, it is their ideology. without reunification with Korea as a democracy, a western aligned democracy there can be no peace.
There are 22 million brain washed individuals in North Korea, if the wall comes down and by the wall I mean the demilitarised zone there would be a rush to freedom but there would be a large hard core, the military, who would be loosing their privilages who would fight
North Korea is not East Germany and comparisons are false. It took the collapse of the soviet union for sense to prevail in East Germany becuase they were a captive nation but North Korea isn't a captive nation.
If the USA made a deal saying they would leave South Korea and not be based there and get SK to sign some sort of neutrality treaty then NK would be be done. I agree it would make sense. Agreeing by treaty among the major powers that Korea will be a neutral country would be a smart solution for Ukraine too.
It makes no sense at all. South Korea cannot be neutral so long as North Korea exists.
You misread paraclete - China would work to fold up and end North Korea and back a unified Korea if and only if Korea emerges as a neutral country with no US bases.
Thre can be no doubt China would like american bases further away from their borders, Their intervention in the Korean war was because of the threat posed my that american meglomaniac McArthur, But SK has no aggressive intentions towards China so thier alignment is an academic and economic question. like China, Korea depends on favourable trade terms with the US but american trade is worth more to Korea than trade with China
Perhaps the real obstacle is that the South Koreans have good reason not to want to be reunited with the Norks. You can't really blame them. It would be a far more traumatic reunification than Germany had. South Korea's got it good and it would take a long time to benefit much from unification with the North. So, in the short-term, the Sorks have no real interest in a unified Korea, even a neutral Korea with treaty guarantees from China/Russia/America and others.
Thre can be no doubt China would like american bases further away from their borders, Their intervention in the Korean war was because of the threat posed my that american meglomaniac McArthur, But SK has no aggressive intentions towards China so thier alignment is an academic and economic question. like China, Korea depends on favourable trade terms with the US but american trade is worth more to Korea than trade with China
After the US said it would not expand eastward towards Russia and did so anyway the Chinese don't trust the USA to not move forces from SK to the north if ever unified. I also do think SK may not want to unify right off the bat but as non Koreans we may be missing emotional and nationalistic issues involved.
