Depends. You assume it’s the US taxpayer’s responsibility to defend west Asia and Eastern Europe.
Why?
One conservative’s argument for a Harris vote
- Thread starter BradStevens
- Start date
Why?
Tax reform
Criminal justice reform
Energy policy
Iran policy
Israel policy
Abraham accords
Meritocracy in government
Cutting red tape
Education choice
Right to try
Promise to put common sense back into Title IX
And a big sleeper—Musl-Led government reform
Sorry you don’t think these are good ideas.
What? I like less taxes, fewer regulations, and fewer illegals to name some obvious ones. lol…by the way this is why I called you a right leaning moderate.
Also, wanting a split government is essential arguing you don’t want GOP policies passed. A GOP congress isn’t beholden to every dumb Trump idea.
Last edited:
A lot of nations are pouring money into Ukraine. The West has a world vision that runs counter to that of Russia and China. We cannot fight them.
We screwed over what the "domino theory" was supposed to be. It was never to be defend everywhere. Vietnam was never worth defending. If China goes in there, or many other nations, we can react politically or diplomatically, but it would not be at all in our interest.
But Taiwan? We need those chips and we need for China/Russia not to have unlimited super modern chips. That would severely eat into our quality edge.
Similar with Russia. There are a lot of Central Asian countries that we have no interest in. Our interest is showing allies that used to be occupied by Russia we have no interest in seeing that happen again.
A world built into the image of dictators is not in our interest. Our response is to identify critical areas and hold the line. A line not requiring American blood. If we are not willing to hold the line with dollars, shouldn't China and Russia fully believe we will never hold it with blood?
I’m talking about the policy ideas he’s touting this cycle.
I am a big proponent of school choice. But education is an issue that belongs in the states.
I’m voting for Javier Milei…and you think I’m a moderate?
As for taxes, the only real tax cut is a spending cut. What we usually call tax cuts are actually just shifts of the tax burden to other people, often in the future.
If he was proposing significant cuts to spending, I might actually have supported him..despite all the crap that comes with him. But his fiscal record in his term was dismal - and I just don’t think cost-cutting is in his DNA.
I don't think that necessarily need be true.
Was Ukraine our "ally?" Doesn't that--or shouldn't it--require a formal agreement or even Congressional approval? Or are we OK with allowing the Executive Branch to create military alliances without such procedural safeguards? By the way, I think the same applies to our relationship with Israel.
All this said, w/r/t your original question and comp of military spending and stopping Putin, I would prefer we cut back on our military budget and focus more on our own backyard.
Tax cuts aren’t the same as just shifts in tax burdens. In order for that to be true Governments would have to spend capital as efficiently as private entities. Governments obviously don’t.
I understand why you’re not voting for Trump and agree with a lot of your reasons for it because they were similar to the reason why I didn’t vote for him 20. However, after living through Biden, I was wrong. Harris a much worse option.
What I don’t understand is why you don’t want a GOP Congress. GOP Congress polices aren't the same as Trump polices. Also, if you want cuts in spending it’s not happening with a split congress. The compromise will be increased spending both of parties pet projects. The best chance of cuts happening is a GOP controlled congress in my opinion.
We are a nation that profits from worldwide markets and resources. More than any other, so we are helped by world stability.
But we also walked right up to the line of promiding to defend Ukraine in the Budapest Accords.
Constructive Ambiguity of the Budapest Memorandum at 28: Making Sense of the Controversial Agreement
The 1994 Budapest Memorandum was purposefully designed to be ambiguous to allow its signatories to achieve significant goals. It is an important tool in the discourse on the current war waged by Russia in violation of the memorandum.
www.lawfaremedia.org
There is a very simple and obvious justification which you don’t like. Trump is totally unfit for the office of President. Former Trump administration appointees are telling you this over and over, but you won’t listen.
Everybody’s entitled to their own opinion, Aloha. That includes you, me, and everybody who is supporting Donald Trump (or Kamala Harris).
We may not like somebody else’s opinion, we may not respect it. And there’s no reason anybody has to adopt the views of others who have a different ones.
But we do have to accept that they have them and have a right to have them.
This, after all, is why we have elections.
Some Trump haters expect respect but don’t give it to those that support Trump. It’s getting pretty disgusting. More disturbing is it’s people who call themselves Republicans doing it the most.
I concur. My point was people seem to neglect our reason for not supporting Trump even though we state it simply and consistently.
Yeah, there’s no call for just badgering people who have different views. We’ve kind of lost the art of civil disagreement in our society.
Trump isn't cutting spending. If you care about the deficit, history has long shown the worst deficits are created by one party control.
The tightest spending controls are likely to happen with a GOP Congress and a Dem President. It's the only time Congressional Republicans ever care about spending and/or cuts. When a Republican is in the WH there is very little obstruction to the general tendency of every President to want more spending somewhere (and/or more tax cuts)
Last edited:
Do all US industries so profit or are we just picking winners and losers in the global markets? Is all that largesse flowing into the pockets of all Americans, or disproportionately going to the Uber-wealthy 1%?We are a nation that profits from worldwide markets and resources. More than any other, so we are helped by world stability.
But we also walked right up to the line of promiding to defend Ukraine in the Budapest Accords.
Constructive Ambiguity of the Budapest Memorandum at 28: Making Sense of the Controversial Agreement
The 1994 Budapest Memorandum was purposefully designed to be ambiguous to allow its signatories to achieve significant goals. It is an important tool in the discourse on the current war waged by Russia in violation of the memorandum.
Maybe the answers are yes or maybe it doesn’t matter, but I think you have to drill down a little more on that story.
But you have gone too far with some. That’s my opinion which isn’t worth anything.
Posters like @hoot1 @crazed_hoosier2 @Marvin the Martian @BradStevens set great examples for all of us.
Edit: @TheOriginalHappyGoat Goat has been decent too.
Last edited:
I get it - you’ve said it consistently.
I just think you crossed a line when you tore into him for not listening to what the anti-Trumpers say about Trump.
He doesn’t have to listen to them…just as you don’t have to listen to people making the opposite case. And nobody should scold you for that either.
There’s a difference between making a strong case for your beliefs, making a strong case against competing beliefs…and just going after somebody for who they do and don’t listen to.
Everything goes disproportionately to the Uber-wealthy, hence why they are uber-wealthy. That said, overall we are doing very well overall in standard of living.
I am sure you are old enough to recall WalMart pushing "Made in America". They stopped. Their customers, largely not Uber-wealthy, didn't care. They wanted cheap, cheap, cheap.
Sweatshops producing our consumer goods are part of the international trade equation.
If we are concerned with Uber-wealthy, a fair concern, I doubt Trump is one to deal with it given his lifetime appointment into the club.
That wouldn't be a terrible outcome and a fair point, but Harris isn't Bill Clinton. And I really dislike her border policies, regulatory policies, and she's against Bitcoin.
I know why you want Trump. You're hoping Trump plus a Republican Congress will print so much money they will devalue the dollar right into the gutter, hastening Bitcoin's rise as the future standard reserve currency.
