Is Ryan A Political Poison Pill for Trump?

I agree with that take. But any significant move toward the RPe positions on the key issues will IMO be very bad for Trump.

 

My current plan is to vote 3rd party. I will not, ever, vote for someone who does not understand the constitutional limitations of the office. I have no interest in getting in another war at this point, especially another one declared by a president rather than Congress. Sanders is the closest I've got there so far.

 

The GOP will not go down either way. Control will either change or not. If Trump wins the RP establishment will lose control of the party and the government. If Trump loses the RP establishment will maintain control of a minority party. There is a great deal of personal power and wealth riding on the outcome.

“They gather, all the brands, at the self-referential festivals, like the April White House Correspondents Association dinner, whose buffet of “pre-parties” and “after-parties” now number more than two dozen– because a single banquet, it is clear, cannot properly celebrate the full achievements of the People Who Run Your Country. … The insider swarm has been known by various names: “Permanent Washington”. “The Political Class”. “The Chattering Class”. “The Usual Suspects”. “The Beltway Establishment”. “The Echo Chamber”. “The Echo System”. “The Gang of 500”. “The Gang 600”. “The Movable Mess”. “The Club”. Mark Leibovich, This Town, Penguin Books, 2013, p. 8.

For the political establishment Trump and Sanders threaten their seats at the table.

 

That's just Trump's opening position.

 

Agreed, but I don't think it will happen.

 

Trump has expressed opposition to a major war, and supported the destruction or seizure of oil fields that support the IS. He is clearly not opposed to all use of military force. Sanders may be less inclined to order military action, but DP presidents have a long history doing just that.

Neither is a sure thing. Your approach to selecting the best candidate seems sound to me.

Neither Trump nor Sanders have convinced me that they will not expand the size, power and cost of government. I could not support either of them with much enthusiasm. I am leaning toward Trump. The RPe opposition to Trump makes him more not less attractive to me.

If they all get in bed together I will have to reevaluate.

 

I would say I'm the most militaristic person on the stage, but I would also say that I know when to do it Trump said

which may not be the best choice of words but it does fit his narrative - strong no holds barred military action when required and when the goals and the exit strategy are well defined and non-involvement in all other cases.

 

Your views and opinions are more refined that your candidate's, and you are attributing your sophistication to him, when it likely isn't justified.

 

• 
  
  [1] Is a vital national security interest threatened?
  
  [2] Do we have a clear attainable objective?
  
  [3] Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
  
  [4] Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
  
  [5] Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
  
  [6] Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
  
  [7] Is the action supported by the American people?
  
  [8] When engaging in war, every resource and tool should be used to achieve decisive force against the enemy, minimizing U.S. casualties and ending the conflict quickly by forcing the weaker force to capitulate

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...evance&usg=AFQjCNG8R5-T-4a0CqHuEd0OzDGsa2_rgA

 

In that case you may be proved right.

- - - Updated - - -

I certainly hope you are right.

 

Trump clearly does not favor another all out war. His proposal to disable the oil production that is funding IS is IMO a good option to consider,

 

We will know for sure soon. The demands for clarity are getting louder everyday.

 

The Powell doctrine is sound. Probably why it is ignored - even by Powell.

 

We can fix that.

Liberal hawks didn't like it: State Madeleine Halfbright demanded, "What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?"

Neocons didn't like it because it precluded the sort of wars of choice and the muscular military strategy that they favored. Adherence to the Powell Doctrine made the notion of transformative military conflict virtually impossible.

In the 1990s, the liberal interventionists worked to soften the Doctrine's hard edges. While they abided by the notion that the United States must avoid long, drawn-out conflicts, they advocated utilizing force without clear political objectives, with only fleeting public support, and under a dubious interpretation of the national interest.

In the post-9/11 strategic environment, the Powell Doctrine was cast aside entirely. The subsequent invasion of Iraq violated virtually every one of its tenets. That its namesake, Colin Powell, was serving as U.S. Secretary of State at the time is perhaps the Doctrine's greatest and most disturbing irony.

Yet, the lack of attention today to the key attributes of the Powell Doctrine is difficult to understand. After the twin conflicts of Iraq and Afghanistan, the more than 5,000 American troops killed, the hundreds of billions -- even trillions -- of dollars spent, it's hard to imagine a strategic doctrine that is more appropriate.

The lessons of the Powell Doctrine and a restrained notion of when military force should be exercised are gathering cobwebs in the U.S. strategic toolbox. The time has come, however, to dust off this old war horse, because it is perhaps more relevant and timely than ever.

The Powell Doctrine emerged out of the Vietnam War, and specifically the belief by many in the military that U.S. troops should never again be asked to fight a similar type of conflict.

The ill-fated U.S. intervention in Lebanon in 1983 exemplified the pitfalls of an open-ended approach to the use of military force. Sent to perform "peacekeeping" duties in the midst of a five-sided ethnic conflict, the U.S. quickly found itself taking sides. Soon after, 241 Marines would be killed when a suicide bomber attacked their barracks.

In the aftermath of 9/11, the restraints imposed by the Powell Doctrine were summarily cast aside. Emboldened by a surrounding cadre of neo-conservatives, for whom the use of U.S. military force was a vital tool of national statecraft, President George W. Bush quickly became a proponent of military intervention and nation building, despite having warned about the perils of such endeavors as a candidate.

The strategic planning behind the invasion and occupation of Iraq represented the antithesis of the Powell Doctrine. Virtually no thought was given to the long-term consequences of invading and occupying Iraq. According to the Army's official history of the war, "There was no adequate operational plan for stability operations and support operations." The war barely had majority public support in the U.S., and by its later stages was deeply unpopular, while key allies were opposed to it from the outset. Finally, there was no exit strategy in place for the departure of U.S. troops.

"What Iraq demonstrates is a need for a new national security strategy, not better tactics and tools to serve the current one. By insisting that there was a right way to remake Iraq, we ignore the limits on our power that the enterprise has exposed and we risk repeating our mistake."

It's worth remembering that the architects of the Powell Doctrine came out of the military. They pushed civilian policymakers to see the benefits of placing more stringent constraints on the use of military force. The military's job is, of course, to carry out the orders of the commander-in-chief, but this does not mean the armed forces can simply cast aside their advisory role to the civilian leadership.

 

Anyone interested in issues relating to the use of military force should save a copy of your very good post.

No American should support another war anywhere under current rules of engagement and leadership. Beyond that and given the failure to win any unambiguous enduring final victory over any enemy since 1945 the case against further military adventures has become very strong.

 

Ryan is coming around and will endorse Trump, that I have no doubt. I think when a few polls begin to show Trump beating Clinton, the never Trumpers will begin to shrink big time. Some will remain true to their cause, but it will be a very few. Now if Clinton maintains her lead, different story. What all the GOP elected officials fear is a Clinton landslide which would take them down too. If that is disproven, watch for all of them to join the Trump Train.

I do not think there is a thing Trump could do or say that would make his supporters drop him. If there was, a lot of them would have abandoned him a long time ago. It is the man they love, not his political views or ideology which bend and change in the wind. His fighting spirit. His willingness to take on everyone. Something his supporters deem very lacking in the current GOP congress and senate.

Now I agree on Trump getting with his wealthiest friends.

 

I may be underestimating the endurance of Trump's hard core supporters. It is difficult for me to fall in "love" with any unproven political candidate. But then I have never been tempted to fall for a girl who had not bribed me with candy, flowers and dinner first.

My political support is always very qualified.

 

Sadly, too many Democrats have been pacified to take action on their side. With the Democratic election corruption, there weren't enough smart ones to stop neo-con and Wall Street shill Clinton. Republicans blew the elistist Jeb! away.

 

Yes. Realistically Trump and Ryan are on the same team.

Ryan is the numbers guy, on the economy, and hes been at odds with obama and the leftys since way way back.

- - - Updated - - -

You can thank the Tea Party.....

oh and FYI:
[video=youtube;XZR2kOIG2Ag]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZR2kOIG2Ag[/video]

 

The money people don't care about partisan politics. They want a divided government because then its business as usual. They do NOT want a Republican president. Ryan doesn't have to do anything with a Democrat president.

 

With all my due respect this is total bs spred by the media and Trump foes. A Trump-supporting redneck in Indiana confronted by Cruz on live TV knew more about Trump and Cruz and their policies and background and views than the average Trump hater on this forum.

Trump won all categories of republicans, including well educated and high income groups. They're not all stupid celebrity adoring idiots, you know. Lots of Trump supporters do have reservations and concerns but they simply realize that he is the only chance for the country to correct the course. Hillary or Jeb or Kasich would simply mean business as usual and Americans are revolting against the status quo in droves. Trump started this movement and is the only man available to lead, imperfect as he may be.

 

Ryan definitely wants a republican president.

Theres no doubt about that.

 

Yes, and all the RP Party girls and boys were entirely convinced that Jeb was unbeatable. The RPe/DPe have become very reality challenged.

Every Democrat with a lick of sense now favors Sanders. I doubt that there are enough of them to give Bernie the nomination.

 

We forget so fast.

 

Ryan has always looked and acted like a phony politician to me.
His opposition to the DP seems to be as staged and phony as all the RP show votes against ObamaCare. OTH, every time the RP has voted to fund the Obama political offensive those votes have been the real deal. Ryan et al are all RINOs.