Trump wants to mostly keep military spending as is.

Cruz wants to grow it.

End of talk.

Though i really wouldn't want any candidate to win, i don't think i could vote if it was Sanders vs Trump. There's not really an obvious choice. It's more a matter of dealing with Sanderscare or not.

Trump wants to mostly keep military spending as is.

Cruz wants to grow it.

End of talk.

So military spending is all that matters? Seems a bit narrow-sighted.

Even if you were right what Trump currently wants is irrelevant, he's shown time and again that his positions change on a dime. Nobody truly knows what the man will do if he actually reaches office, and that's the scariest part.

At-least Cruz's intentions are relatively straight-forward.

So military spending is all that matters? Seems a bit narrow-sighted.

Why I like Sanders the best:

He wants to warmonger less, lower spending on the military (and other than maybe Clinton, he's the only one who wants to do this), he'll ruin the economy so it will be less suited to future warmongering in the future. I care personally more about saving some lives, than about whether gay folk can vote or not.

He wants to warmonger less, lower spending on the military

This I approve of fully.

he'll ruin the economy

Fears of this is why I'm not fully behind him. However, I'm not really convinced either way. Is there any hard evidence that Sanders' plans will destroy the U.S economy?

Is there any hard evidence that Sanders' plans will destroy the U.S economy?

You can say the same about all the candidates' policies.

lol. Hill is so weak a dead cow could beat her to the White House

When inevitably Sanders drops out (he has to win all the remaining states by a large margin if he wants any chance of beating Hill), Sanders voters will flop to Hillary, and not Trump/Cruz/Kasich because Sanders aligns with Hillary more than any other candidate, despite their debates.

Now, it's very likely that Trump will destroy Cruz and Kasich, sadly. It will come down to Hill-Trump election, and Hillary will smash Trump.

A new Klingon for president!

Cruz is a constitutionalist first and foremost, these portrayals of him as a religious fanatic are so off base.

On almost all social issues his answer is to leave it to the states to decide. He doesn't care if California allows gay marriage. What he does care about is the Federal Government forcing views on social issues down the throat of the states when the government has no constitutional right to do so.

Even if you were right what Trump currently wants is irrelevant, he's shown time and again that his positions change on a dime. Nobody truly knows what the man will do if he actually reaches office, and that's the scariest part.

+1. Trump pledges time and time again he's going to make the military great again by listening to the generals. He'll find that its quite difficult to clean up wasteful Pentagon spending when the corrupt US generals who are mostly speaking heads for the DoD and Military-Industrial Complex keep asking for money to go and build the next weapon or fight another war. If you [Жұқтыру] actually trust what Donald Trump is saying on military intervention, then he's succeeded in fooling you. That's his best quality remember. He's a con man and political opportunist.

Edited 3/16/2016 20:32:14

Even if you were right what Trump currently wants is irrelevant, he's shown time and again that his positions change on a dime. Nobody truly knows what the man will do if he actually reaches office, and that's the scariest part.

+1. Trump pledges time and time again he's going to make the military great again by listening to the generals. He'll find that its quite difficult to clean up wasteful Pentagon spending when the corrupt US generals who are mostly speaking heads for the DoD and Military-Industrial Complex keep asking for money to go and build the next weapon or fight another war. If you [Жұқтыру] actually trust what Donald Trump is saying on military intervention, then he's succeeded in fooling you. That's his best quality remember. He's a con man and political opportunist.

You can say the same about all these candidates. You don't know what they're going to do. You think these candidates stick to their ideologies since they're principled? No, they stick to what is best for them and their sponsors, and also sometimes other things if they're low on public support/was a big point in their campaign and they'd look awful if they didn't do it.

Trump flip-flopping is not an argument against Trump, it's a counterargument against the argument that Trump is (decently) constant in his stances (which is rarely argued, anyway). Cruz, Kasich and whoever else can just be good at hiding what they really want to do. Being a small politician doesn't mean you'll be the same as a big politician.

I'm assuming each politician will tell the truth about what they do, which is an assumption and may not happen, but there are no guesses otherwise. And I'd pick Trump, who says he is not going to grow the military forces out, over Cruz, who says he will.

What's really embarrassing is how all other candidates support sanctions on Russia , a country which is less of a threat than a wannabe caliphate which can't beat a bunch of communists who are fighting one of the strongest countries in Europe/Middle East.

Because economic sanctions is exactly how you keep less threatening countries in check when it's too painful to invest military resources. Obviously you have to calculate the damage on your side (farm profits in Eastern Europe are plummeting, and countries like Germany don't like increased gas prices) but Obama's already been pretty straightforward- Ukraine/etc. are not worth any more effort on America's part than this.

Gas prices increasing is good for europe. It will speed up the energy transition and force countries to find other sources of supply for gas, which will both reduce their russian dependence.

^ Yeah, but humans are naturally lazy, so while in the long run it is good for Europe, knyte says "countries like Germany don't like increased gas prices" -not that it isn't good for them.

Stop defending irresponsible warmongering on NATO's part. Sanctioning is most basic thing against to do against Russia, remove that and we won't be gearing up for war against them in Eastern Europe like we are now. Trump , and this pains me to say, is the one candidate who has a much smaller chance of starting a world war due to this. Russia is not a threat to the US in almost everyway. What makes war likely though, is sustained interference in conflicts like in Donbas and Syria (Putin left though, thank heavens), and sustained economic sanctions.

Trump flip-flopping is not an argument against Trump, it's a counterargument against the argument that Trump is (decently) constant in his stances (which is rarely argued, anyway). Cruz, Kasich and whoever else can just be good at hiding what they really want to do. Being a small politician doesn't mean you'll be the same as a big politician.

I'm assuming each politician will tell the truth about what they do, which is an assumption and may not happen, but there are no guesses otherwise. And I'd pick Trump, who says he is not going to grow the military forces out, over Cruz, who says he will.

What are you talking about? Trump's entire platform revolves around him promising not to be a RINO (Republican In Name Only) like most of the GOP, which keep getting voted into Congress by rank-and-file voters who hope that real conservative change will come to DC. However the entire point of exposing Trump's inconsistencies on policy is that Trump is a RINO and therefore can't be expected to fight the RINOs in Congress to bring conservative change. The number of times Cruz and Kasich have flip-flopped in their entire political careers is probably less than what Trump has done in a decade.

Russia is not a threat to the US in almost everyway. What makes war likely though, is sustained interference in conflicts like in Donbas and Syria (Putin left though, thank heavens), and sustained economic sanctions.

+1. Couldn't say it better myself. In my email conversations with Professor Cohen, he says the Russophobia of the neoconservative and neoliberal military establishment is a byproduct of forgetting Russia's place in the world post-Berlin Wall collapse. In almost every major indicator of international, military, economic, cultural, and geopolitical power Russia falls behind the USA. The idea that the US sent actual Congressman to Maidan Square to support an armed coup of Yanukovich is an absolute disgrace. That would be equivalent to Putin sending Duma members to help support the Texas secessionist party. Is the Donbas really worth American taxpayer money and military equipment? No. People like Senator McCain who try to frame it in the "We have to help them fight for Democracy!" narrative are living 30 years in the past where there was an actual legitimate national security interest in destroying Russian communism. Communism is dead and Russia actually poses less danger than China.

What are you talking about? Trump's entire platform revolves around him promising not to be a RINO (Republican In Name Only) like most of the GOP, which keep getting voted into Congress by rank-and-file voters who hope that real conservative change will come to DC.

Yeah, that's a big bit of his campaign, and that's a counter-argument against that, but frankly, even the stuff he says he's going to do, most of it is not very radic.

Trump is a RINO and therefore can't be expected to fight the RINOs in Congress to bring conservative change.

Is it somehow un-Republican to grow the military? Congress is conservative and wants more, I don't know what you're talking about, but all the Republicans at this point are definitely pretty conservative.

The number of times Cruz and Kasich have flip-flopped in their entire political careers is probably less than what Trump has done in a decade.

Again, knowing what they did as a small politician won't help much to forecast what they'll do as a big politician.

Professor Cohen

Who's that? It's clear you're trying to brag here, or at least, bring in an "expert source", but I have no idea who you're talking about. Cohen is a kind of popular Germanic last name.

Russia actually poses less danger than China.

China is actually very dangerous to America, on the other hand. American military forces and propaganda are poking the wrong foe, with all its propoganda against China, like "Chinese South Sea Aggression". China's trying to secure it's claimed borders, in the meantime, America is trying to start something. Also, America better make friends with India, too.

Edited 3/16/2016 22:08:09

even the stuff he says he's going to do, most of it is not very radic.

1) Banning muslim entry
2) Deporting 11-12 million illegal immigrants

Many would consider that radical :P

Is it somehow un-Republican to grow the military?

Based on my definition of what it means to be Conservative and a Republican, yes it is contrary to historical political philosophy to grow the military.

Again, knowing what they did as a small politician won't help much to forecast what they'll do as a big politician.

Cruz was never a small anything. He clerked with Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist, was the Associate Deputy Attorney General of the DoJ, was the Texas Solicitor General, and then US Senator for Texas. Throughout that time, he hasn't changed much.

Who's that? It's clear you're trying to brag here, or at least, bring in an "expert source", but I have no idea who you're talking about. Cohen is a kind of popular last name.

Apologies. Professor Stephen F. Cohen is professor emeritus of Princeton and NYU, and his area of expertise is in Russian History. During the 2014 unrest in Ukraine he was heavily criticized for his pro-Russian views with people like Christiane Amanpour calling him an apologist for Putin. Cohen argues that the media stifles anyone who even tries to understand the situation from the Kremlin's perspective and he regularly writes for The Nation, a progressive and non-interventionist newspaper that endorsed Bernie Sanders. Cohen believes that US foreign policy is responsible for the continuation of Cold War hostilities between the two countries despite its end in 1991, citing NATO's eastward expansion as evidence for his hypothesis.

I would watch this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX_HuMiP8v8

I only know him because I organized for him to speak at our High School about the importance of civic nationalism and history for democracy.

1) Banning muslim entry
2) Deporting 11-12 million illegal immigrants

Many would consider that radical :P

If that's what he really meant, just illegalising all Muslims from coming in, that's not going to be allowed. Lowering Muslim immigration and anti-immigration in gener, though, is nothing radic.

Based on my definition of what it means to be Conservative and a Republican, yes it is contrary to historical political philosophy to grow the military.

You're a libertarian, not a conserve. A conserve wants more government control, a libertarian less. Also, the meaning of Republican (with uppercase R) is whatever the Republican party wants right now, which is conservism.

Cruz was never a small anything. He clerked with Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist, was the Associate Deputy Attorney General of the DoJ, was the Texas Solicitor General, and then US Senator for Texas. Throughout that time, he hasn't changed much.

So was Cruz not a small politician in these years?

Professor Stephen F. Cohen is professor emeritus of Princeton and NYU, and his area of expertise is in Russian History. During the 2014 unrest in Ukraine he was heavily criticized for his pro-Russian views with people like Christiane Amanpour calling him an apologist for Putin. Cohen argues that the media stifles anyone who even tries to understand the situation from the Kremlin's perspect

"understanding the situation from the Kremlin's perspect" is also a mistake. Russia was not justified to invade Ukraine, nor take Crimea, nor invade Syria. However, what is not a mistake, is to look at it in relativity, was America justified to send weapons and militarymen to Ukraine, either, or invade Iraq or Afghanistan? Very much no.

What does the Republican party want to do right now? Suck RR's dead dick.