Fifty of the nation’s most senior Republican national security officials, many of them former top aides or cabinet members for President George W. Bush, have signed a letter declaring that Donald J. Trump “lacks the character, values and experience” to be president and “would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”
Mr. Trump, the officials warn, “would be the most reckless president in American history.”
The letter says Mr. Trump would weaken the United States’ moral authority and questions his knowledge of and belief in the Constitution. It says he has “demonstrated repeatedly that he has little understanding” of the nation’s “vital national interests, its complex diplomatic challenges, its indispensable alliances and the democratic values” on which American policy should be based. And it laments that “Mr. Trump has shown no interest in educating himself.”
“He is unable or unwilling to separate truth from falsehood,” the letter says. “He does not encourage conflicting views. He lacks self-control and acts impetuously. He cannot tolerate personal criticism. He has alarmed our closest allies with his erratic behavior. All of these are dangerous qualities in an individual who aspires to be president and commander in chief, with command of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.”
Hell, even members of his own party can't stand him ....
It's not his horrible character, inappropriate comments, or divisive and racist base that will be the final nail in his campaign's coffin. It's his challenge of the existing global power structure where Russians are the bad guys, America is always good, and black-ops regime-change is always on the agenda. That's what will bring Trump down; isolationist and 'unorthodox' foreign policy views. He's finished.
The two party system is not hard wired into the constitution. In fact, the founding fathers foresaw current events and estimated this would occur and therefore condemned the party system. George Washington in his farewell address warned of this. Regardless of your party make sure to realize the overall picture. Government has been over reaching and this is bad. Anytime the government over reaches, as proven by historical facts, things go down hill fast. Let's get a convention of the states going and take the country back from people like trump and Clinton. Convention of states, by the way, is hard wired into the constitution.
"More than 70 Republicans have signed an open letter urging Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus into cutting off funding to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, and using it to finance Republican Senate and House races, according to a letter obtained by Politico.
"We believe that Donald Trump's divisiveness, recklessness, incompetence, and record-breaking unpopularity risk turning this election into a Democratic landslide, and only the immediate shift of all available RNC resources to vulnerable Senate and House races will prevent the GOP from drowning with a Trump-emblazoned anchor around its neck."
We can only hope !!!!!
Isn't it funny how, all of a sudden, thinking conservatives are starting to realize that this moron is on the verge of destroying the GOP. Wonder how it took them so long to recognize what has been totally obvious from the beginning of his candidacy.
Campaigning earlier today for the Trumpster, Rudi Giuliani made the following statement: "Under those eight years, before Obama came along, we didn’t have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States. They all started when Clinton and Obama got into office,”
Uh, Rudy ... did you somehow forget 9/11, which occurred in your own city when Bush was in the White House?
What the hell's wrong with these Republicans - are they congenitally stupid, or just fundamentally dishonest?
FACT: either Trump or Clinton will be elected -- since one of those candidates holds the very real prospect of destroying this country, there IS a lesser of two evils.
One of the candidates, HAVE already put the country at risk, lied to the public and should be in jail right now for corruption, let alone campaigning for president. mind you with a decrepit health state that can barely make <decisions>
Let me ask you a simple question: how much you get paid for shilling? Do you still get paid even fi your shills doesn't stick?
^ Ah ... all the Fox News talking points. How do you sleep at night? Been watching a little Hannity, have you?
Look, I'd be quite happy voting Republican if that sad old party could nominate a decent candidate. Hell, even Mitt Romney is starting to look pretty good right now.
But, the Screaming Cheeto is what the GOP has put forward and there's no way that lying, mentally ill demagogue is going to get my vote.
so George W.H. Bush was in some serious shit pre-presidential election, that whole Iran Contra thing, well anyway, he became president.
In the Bush-Clinton era, being part criminal is a prerequisite. like legit national security crimes, not that trump university shit, that's for amateurs.
Beyond the overinflated egos of both these pompous fools, this election is not about candidates; it's about ideology. If you want expanded government at the taxpayers' expense, vote for the dems; if you want smaller government, deregulated business, and lower taxes, vote republican. Both parties will lead us to endless war "paid for" by mountains of debt. The sick twist on this particular election is that both parties have made this a contest of identity politics that has only reinforced divisions. Those are the choices we got, folks.
what republican policy supports less government? government intrusion into women's rights to choose an abortion? gay people's right to get married? expanded patent and copyright protection, along with citizen's united, which is essentially government protection for disney and monsanto? tax breaks to capital gains and inheritance rather than actually working for a living? that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard. no republican actually running for office wants to reduce government. they get paid to expand government control.
the only "less government" you'll see with republicans is reduced EPA tests so the koch brothers can frack where they want, when they want.
What are republicans in the house currently doing to reduce the size of government? Just shutting down the government when they throw tantrums because they don't get what they want right?
The President and Congress basically do the same dance every year. The President proposes a budget with more spending and more taxes. The House and Senate pass a budget resolution that is a million miles apart from the President. We spend a year arguing and handwringing over the chasm of differences before there is a budget crisis and a short term funding bill is passed. I think a better question is, "What are the Democrats doing to reduce the size of government?"
I didn't say democrats are trying to reduce the size of government. try to keep up.
your assumption that republicans are trying to reduce the size of government is incorrect. aside from that, your apparent assumption that reduced government will somehow benefit you is also more than likely misguided.
Are you implying that increased government will benefit me? I don't want government to benefit me. That right now is the fundamental difference between the two parties. Democrats want the government to benefit them, and Republicans believe they are better off without government. Clearly there is a spectrum here. Government needs to provide basic services, but the pendulum has swung way too far to the left where people expect government to "benefit" them. That is a problem.
that's a myth. republicans aren't trying to limit government. for example, they want government to perpetually fund teams of lawyers to attack clintons and other dems, so they use an expansion of the courts and increased government waste to try to hold on to their seats. want to reduce government waste and fraud? vote for people that will stop paying lawyers to attack their opponents.
you call it "government benefits" if a firefighter helps me if my house burns down, but it's "basic services without government' when you get help. come on. how could anyone take you seriously with a belief like that?
I want the government to "benefit me" by protecting me (and society in general) from the abuses of unrestrained capitalism and the 1%. And I say that as a confirmed capitalist.
curt, you're not drawing distinctions that are critical to the argument. Police, fire, ems are basic services provided by local government, not federal. Education is a state/local issue, not a federal one. Housing policy is a state/local issue, not a federal one. The role of federal government should be limited to that that exceeds the powers of the states, and when all is said and done that's a pretty limited scope. The Democrats on the other hand look to the federal government to address states' issues through the DOE, HUD, DOT, etc. Massive wastes of money and usurping of authority with minimal impact at a local level. I know - I work with these departments and see the byzantine bureaucracy and waste.
wadw: nope - for starters, I want Citizens United overturned so if the wealthy decide they want to try to buy our government we at least know who's making the effort.
But, now that you mention it, I also think - relative to the benefits they derive - the 1% should pay higher taxes, including estate taxes.
ODN: well, I would have preferred a different Democratic candidate, but she is what we got.
I am a pragmatist. Despite all the 'tilting at windmills' that goes along with support for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, any objective citizen will know that, in the end, either Donald or Hillary will become the next President.
Both candidates have flaws -- his flaws are so egregious, and his temperament so unstable, that I truly cannot see how any reasonably educated and thoughtful person can support his candidacy.
you don't like clean drinking water? you don't like the interstate? i get how fair housing is something you wouldn't like, because that's designed to help someone other than you (thus a 'government benefit' rather than 'basic service'). the interstate though. that's commerce. that's national security. you benefit from DoT....
DOE is Department of Education. I am not saying they are "bad"; I am saying they are largely unnecessary because they are trying to do something that is better left in the hands of the States. School funding largely comes from the States and should be under their jurisdiction. We don't need the Federal bureaucracy coming in to tell the State's what to do with programs like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. By eliminating these federal programs and returning power to the States, you decrease the cost of funding the federal bureaucracy. You find the same sort of wasteful programs throughout most departments of federal government from HUD to DOT. Again, I work with these departments and see it first hand.
^ you also decrease the amount of funds available for education in the poorer (or less enlightened) states. DOE also tries to ensure that at least some basic standard of education is available to all K-12 students across the 50 states -- which is a desirable public policy.
^ Are you talking about Title 1? Again why is funding for low income schools a federal problem? It is a states' problem as the states account for 90%+ of school funding.
wadw: I agree it is a "states' problem" and if the states, and local communities, made a reasonably uniform effort to fund their own schools properly then there would not be much role for the Federal government to play in K-12 education. However, that is NOT the case since various legislatures and local governments are more than willing to starve school systems for funds - especially in localities highly populated by people they don't like.
Come on -- don't tell me you didn't already understand that ?
no child left behind was signed into law by a republican president, because republicans are trying expand government just as much as democrats. you still don't seem to get that? someone tells you a white lie (republicans are for less government) and you build an ideology around it? lots of republicans like to talk about defending education, but not many of them actually vote that way in congress.
by the way, according to wikipedia, it's ED rather than DoE (which is department of energy)
wikipedia also has a paragraph on what they do, which is probably not what you think they do
Just dropping in to point out it was Bush that signed No Child Left Behind and took that giant leap to a smaller federal government. Edit: curtkram beat me to it.
Babs, and this is where we will disagree. Your solution is to increase the size and cost of federal government; my solution is to work it out at the state level and elect better local and state leadership to achieve your policy objectives. We will each choose to vote for leadership that reflects those goals.
I realize Bush signed NCLB, and it's been an abject failure in most regards. I'm not claiming to be a Democrat or Republican. (This may surprise you, but I have never voted Republican in my life.)
If we allow idiot states control of education, we'll end up with a bunch of special needs adults, spouting a bunch of horseshit, religious dogma about climate change, and the existence of dinosaurs during the time of Christ; I'm looking at you Arkansas.
my solution is to work it out at the state level and elect better local and state leadership to achieve your policy objectives. We will each choose to vote for leadership that reflects those goals.
but that isn't how it's working out. maybe the republican candidate on your school board is a great candidate. that is very possible, and not at all uncommon. on the national stage though, you are not voting for republicans who believe in reducing government, and there is no reason for you to believe that your are.
if you want to live like a republican, vote democrat.
Curt, you are totally delusional if you are arguing that the Democrats are actually the party of small government. If that is indeed what you are saying, there really isn't much point in continuing this discussion. Own up to who you are and what you value.
Thump the Trump
50 G.O.P. Officials Warn Donald Trump Would Put Nation’s Security ‘at Risk’
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/us/politics/national-security-gop-donald-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
Fifty of the nation’s most senior Republican national security officials, many of them former top aides or cabinet members for President George W. Bush, have signed a letter declaring that Donald J. Trump “lacks the character, values and experience” to be president and “would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”
Mr. Trump, the officials warn, “would be the most reckless president in American history.”
The letter says Mr. Trump would weaken the United States’ moral authority and questions his knowledge of and belief in the Constitution. It says he has “demonstrated repeatedly that he has little understanding” of the nation’s “vital national interests, its complex diplomatic challenges, its indispensable alliances and the democratic values” on which American policy should be based. And it laments that “Mr. Trump has shown no interest in educating himself.”
“He is unable or unwilling to separate truth from falsehood,” the letter says. “He does not encourage conflicting views. He lacks self-control and acts impetuously. He cannot tolerate personal criticism. He has alarmed our closest allies with his erratic behavior. All of these are dangerous qualities in an individual who aspires to be president and commander in chief, with command of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.”
Hell, even members of his own party can't stand him ....
It's not his horrible character, inappropriate comments, or divisive and racist base that will be the final nail in his campaign's coffin. It's his challenge of the existing global power structure where Russians are the bad guys, America is always good, and black-ops regime-change is always on the agenda. That's what will bring Trump down; isolationist and 'unorthodox' foreign policy views. He's finished.
What will happen to his businesses if he gets elected? Will he still run them?
he's TRUMP he'll do what he WANTS!
Yep -- there's still no bottom in sight ...
"Donald Trump: I meant that Obama founded ISIS, literally!"
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/donald-trump-hugh-hewitt-obama-founder-isis/index.html
Guess the Screaming Cheeto never heard of Cheney / Bush.
The two party system is not hard wired into the constitution. In fact, the founding fathers foresaw current events and estimated this would occur and therefore condemned the party system. George Washington in his farewell address warned of this. Regardless of your party make sure to realize the overall picture. Government has been over reaching and this is bad. Anytime the government over reaches, as proven by historical facts, things go down hill fast. Let's get a convention of the states going and take the country back from people like trump and Clinton. Convention of states, by the way, is hard wired into the constitution.
Republicans tell RNC Chairman Reince Priebus to de-fund Trump
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-tell-rnc-chairman-reince-priebus-to-de-fund-trump/
"More than 70 Republicans have signed an open letter urging Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus into cutting off funding to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, and using it to finance Republican Senate and House races, according to a letter obtained by Politico.
"We believe that Donald Trump's divisiveness, recklessness, incompetence, and record-breaking unpopularity risk turning this election into a Democratic landslide, and only the immediate shift of all available RNC resources to vulnerable Senate and House races will prevent the GOP from drowning with a Trump-emblazoned anchor around its neck."
We can only hope !!!!!
Isn't it funny how, all of a sudden, thinking conservatives are starting to realize that this moron is on the verge of destroying the GOP. Wonder how it took them so long to recognize what has been totally obvious from the beginning of his candidacy.
Trump on Thursday: "I meant that Obama founded ISIS ... literally!"
Trump on Friday: "It was sarcasm ... don't they get sarcasm ?"
The man becomes a bigger joke (if that were possible) with each passing day.
Campaigning earlier today for the Trumpster, Rudi Giuliani made the following statement: "Under those eight years, before Obama came along, we didn’t have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States. They all started when Clinton and Obama got into office,”
Uh, Rudy ... did you somehow forget 9/11, which occurred in your own city when Bush was in the White House?
What the hell's wrong with these Republicans - are they congenitally stupid, or just fundamentally dishonest?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html
What the hell's wrong with these Republicans - are they congenitally stupid, or just fundamentally dishonest?
Not mutually-exclusive possibilities.
babs,
What the hell's wrong with these Republicans - are they congenitally stupid, or just fundamentally dishonest?
BOTH.
Consider how you're going to feel if you wake up on Wednesday, November 9th to discover that this clown is your new President.
Babs - if your vote is motivated by fear then sHillary should scare the pants off you.
FYI this is not an endorsement for tRUMP. There is no such thing as a 'lesser of two evils'.
FACT: either Trump or Clinton will be elected -- since one of those candidates holds the very real prospect of destroying this country, there IS a lesser of two evils.
You are absolutely correct babs
One of the candidates, HAVE already put the country at risk, lied to the public and should be in jail right now for corruption, let alone campaigning for president. mind you with a decrepit health state that can barely make <decisions>
Let me ask you a simple question: how much you get paid for shilling? Do you still get paid even fi your shills doesn't stick?
^ Ah ... all the Fox News talking points. How do you sleep at night? Been watching a little Hannity, have you?
Look, I'd be quite happy voting Republican if that sad old party could nominate a decent candidate. Hell, even Mitt Romney is starting to look pretty good right now.
But, the Screaming Cheeto is what the GOP has put forward and there's no way that lying, mentally ill demagogue is going to get my vote.
you're talking about trump university cadomestique?
so George W.H. Bush was in some serious shit pre-presidential election, that whole Iran Contra thing, well anyway, he became president.
In the Bush-Clinton era, being part criminal is a prerequisite. like legit national security crimes, not that trump university shit, that's for amateurs.
Beyond the overinflated egos of both these pompous fools, this election is not about candidates; it's about ideology. If you want expanded government at the taxpayers' expense, vote for the dems; if you want smaller government, deregulated business, and lower taxes, vote republican. Both parties will lead us to endless war "paid for" by mountains of debt. The sick twist on this particular election is that both parties have made this a contest of identity politics that has only reinforced divisions. Those are the choices we got, folks.
what republican policy supports less government? government intrusion into women's rights to choose an abortion? gay people's right to get married? expanded patent and copyright protection, along with citizen's united, which is essentially government protection for disney and monsanto? tax breaks to capital gains and inheritance rather than actually working for a living? that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard. no republican actually running for office wants to reduce government. they get paid to expand government control.
the only "less government" you'll see with republicans is reduced EPA tests so the koch brothers can frack where they want, when they want.
Oh ok, so now it's the Republicans who are the party of big government. You keep running with that one, dude.
one of my favorite metallica albums...
shit, wrong thread....
What are republicans in the house currently doing to reduce the size of government? Just shutting down the government when they throw tantrums because they don't get what they want right?
The President and Congress basically do the same dance every year. The President proposes a budget with more spending and more taxes. The House and Senate pass a budget resolution that is a million miles apart from the President. We spend a year arguing and handwringing over the chasm of differences before there is a budget crisis and a short term funding bill is passed. I think a better question is, "What are the Democrats doing to reduce the size of government?"
I didn't say democrats are trying to reduce the size of government. try to keep up.
your assumption that republicans are trying to reduce the size of government is incorrect. aside from that, your apparent assumption that reduced government will somehow benefit you is also more than likely misguided.
Are you implying that increased government will benefit me? I don't want government to benefit me. That right now is the fundamental difference between the two parties. Democrats want the government to benefit them, and Republicans believe they are better off without government. Clearly there is a spectrum here. Government needs to provide basic services, but the pendulum has swung way too far to the left where people expect government to "benefit" them. That is a problem.
that's a myth. republicans aren't trying to limit government. for example, they want government to perpetually fund teams of lawyers to attack clintons and other dems, so they use an expansion of the courts and increased government waste to try to hold on to their seats. want to reduce government waste and fraud? vote for people that will stop paying lawyers to attack their opponents.
you call it "government benefits" if a firefighter helps me if my house burns down, but it's "basic services without government' when you get help. come on. how could anyone take you seriously with a belief like that?
I want the government to "benefit me" by protecting me (and society in general) from the abuses of unrestrained capitalism and the 1%. And I say that as a confirmed capitalist.
curt, you're not drawing distinctions that are critical to the argument. Police, fire, ems are basic services provided by local government, not federal. Education is a state/local issue, not a federal one. Housing policy is a state/local issue, not a federal one. The role of federal government should be limited to that that exceeds the powers of the states, and when all is said and done that's a pretty limited scope. The Democrats on the other hand look to the federal government to address states' issues through the DOE, HUD, DOT, etc. Massive wastes of money and usurping of authority with minimal impact at a local level. I know - I work with these departments and see the byzantine bureaucracy and waste.
Babs, and how do you want to be protected from the 1%? By raising their taxes and expanding federal government? Strawman much?
Wow Won, I didn't think anyone else here 'got' it.
there is hope! (for change)
wadw: nope - for starters, I want Citizens United overturned so if the wealthy decide they want to try to buy our government we at least know who's making the effort.
But, now that you mention it, I also think - relative to the benefits they derive - the 1% should pay higher taxes, including estate taxes.
and babs thats why Hillary must be stopped as well. in short nothing will change.
ODN: well, I would have preferred a different Democratic candidate, but she is what we got.
I am a pragmatist. Despite all the 'tilting at windmills' that goes along with support for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, any objective citizen will know that, in the end, either Donald or Hillary will become the next President.
Both candidates have flaws -- his flaws are so egregious, and his temperament so unstable, that I truly cannot see how any reasonably educated and thoughtful person can support his candidacy.
DOE, HUD, and DOT are bad?
you don't like clean drinking water? you don't like the interstate? i get how fair housing is something you wouldn't like, because that's designed to help someone other than you (thus a 'government benefit' rather than 'basic service'). the interstate though. that's commerce. that's national security. you benefit from DoT....
DOE is Department of Education. I am not saying they are "bad"; I am saying they are largely unnecessary because they are trying to do something that is better left in the hands of the States. School funding largely comes from the States and should be under their jurisdiction. We don't need the Federal bureaucracy coming in to tell the State's what to do with programs like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. By eliminating these federal programs and returning power to the States, you decrease the cost of funding the federal bureaucracy. You find the same sort of wasteful programs throughout most departments of federal government from HUD to DOT. Again, I work with these departments and see it first hand.
^ you also decrease the amount of funds available for education in the poorer (or less enlightened) states. DOE also tries to ensure that at least some basic standard of education is available to all K-12 students across the 50 states -- which is a desirable public policy.
^ Are you talking about Title 1? Again why is funding for low income schools a federal problem? It is a states' problem as the states account for 90%+ of school funding.
Yes
wadw: I agree it is a "states' problem" and if the states, and local communities, made a reasonably uniform effort to fund their own schools properly then there would not be much role for the Federal government to play in K-12 education. However, that is NOT the case since various legislatures and local governments are more than willing to starve school systems for funds - especially in localities highly populated by people they don't like.
Come on -- don't tell me you didn't already understand that ?
no child left behind was signed into law by a republican president, because republicans are trying expand government just as much as democrats. you still don't seem to get that? someone tells you a white lie (republicans are for less government) and you build an ideology around it? lots of republicans like to talk about defending education, but not many of them actually vote that way in congress.
by the way, according to wikipedia, it's ED rather than DoE (which is department of energy)
wikipedia also has a paragraph on what they do, which is probably not what you think they do
Just dropping in to point out it was Bush that signed No Child Left Behind and took that giant leap to a smaller federal government. Edit: curtkram beat me to it.
Also: http://politicsthatwork.com/blog/blue-states-outperforming-red-states.php
You can continue thumping ...
Babs, and this is where we will disagree. Your solution is to increase the size and cost of federal government; my solution is to work it out at the state level and elect better local and state leadership to achieve your policy objectives. We will each choose to vote for leadership that reflects those goals.
I realize Bush signed NCLB, and it's been an abject failure in most regards. I'm not claiming to be a Democrat or Republican. (This may surprise you, but I have never voted Republican in my life.)
There is also this ...
my solution is to work it out at the state level and elect better local and state leadership to achieve your policy objectives. We will each choose to vote for leadership that reflects those goals.
but that isn't how it's working out. maybe the republican candidate on your school board is a great candidate. that is very possible, and not at all uncommon. on the national stage though, you are not voting for republicans who believe in reducing government, and there is no reason for you to believe that your are.
if you want to live like a republican, vote democrat.
Curt, you are totally delusional if you are arguing that the Democrats are actually the party of small government. If that is indeed what you are saying, there really isn't much point in continuing this discussion. Own up to who you are and what you value.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.