The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
At this point, "bigger Wikileaks" may well be Clinton admitting she cheats on her diet with a morning donut.
So far the two most interesting things I've learned from the wikileaks emails are:
- foreign policy stuff that I've already posted about
- Clinton campaign expressing a plan to get the press to help them "elevate" the Trump campaign in order to avoid losing to a less blatantly evil candidate (I'm a bit surprised at how willing people here are to brush this one off, given how much we dislike Trump)
Regardless of the GOP's attempts to turn the emails into a major scandal, some of them do actually hold interesting information ! I, for one, hail our Russian hacker overlords
Regarding the latter, the plan wasn't to actually have Trump win the nomination, as I don't think anyone thought that possible.
To me, it reads more like Trump and other "extreme" candidates were to be talked about as "serious" contenders to force the "real" candidates to publically comment on their nonsense, thereby either hurting them in the primary if they disagreed or in the general if they agreed.
This seems like a fairly normal strategy, except this time one of the crazy ones won. I'm not sure if this strategy is, on net, good for the country. I think there is a benefit to testing exactly what each presidential candidate is willing to on record as supporting. Consider the opposite: from the right, if they had "elevated" Sanders, that would have forced Hillary to take stances on his positions, whereas had he remained insignificant, she would not have needed to clarify her own stances. This seems like a fine thing to have happen.
But maybe there are other actual emails that make it worse.
Anyway, mostly I just needed a distraction from the dog throwing up in the middle of the night. Election 2016: better than dog vomit.
(full "strategy" document attached maybe?)
I think we're talking about the same one. You're probably right that the Clinton campaign didn't think Trump would win regardless. It still strikes me as playing with fire, although I do understand the political logic behind it.
0
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited October 2016
WBUR, Maassaachuussettss, 13th-16th (They didn't want it to feel left out of polling I guess)
Clinton 54
Trump 28
Johnson 7
Stein 3
WBUR, Maassaachuussettss, 13th-16th (They didn't want it to feel left out of polling I guess)
Clinton 54
Trump 28
Johnson 7
Stein 3
Woo!
As a Bostonian, I'm a little embarrassed by that 28%.
This is the Cradle of Liberty- Trump support should be a rounding error.
Edit: However, I deeply appreciate that Stein is at the very bottom even in her home state. I have vain hope that this will be the last time she bothers.
The fact this man is trying to undermine the nations confidence in its elections is probably most damaging thing he has done on a long term scale. A peaceful transition of power by elections which the populace has confidence in is more important than his spray tanned ego.
"I'll look for... well, it's called racial profiling," one Trump supporter told the Boston Globe during a rally in Cincinnati. "Mexicans. Syrians. People who can't speak American. I'm going to go right up behind them. I'll do everything legally. I want to see if they are accountable. I'm not going to do anything illegal. I'm going to make them a little nervous."
--
"If she's in office, I hope we can start a coup. She should be in prison or shot. That's how I feel about it," Dan Bowman, a 50-year-old Trump supporter said during Trump's recent Cincinnati rally.
"We're going to have a revolution and take them out of office if that's what it takes. There's going to be a lot of bloodshed. But that's what it's going to take," he continued. "I would do whatever I can for my country."
The fact this man is trying to undermine the nations confidence in its elections is probably most damaging thing he has done on a long term scale. A peaceful transition of power by elections which the populace has confidence in is more important than his spray tanned ego.
"I'll look for... well, it's called racial profiling," one Trump supporter told the Boston Globe during a rally in Cincinnati. "Mexicans. Syrians. People who can't speak American. I'm going to go right up behind them. I'll do everything legally. I want to see if they are accountable. I'm not going to do anything illegal. I'm going to make them a little nervous."
--
"If she's in office, I hope we can start a coup. She should be in prison or shot. That's how I feel about it," Dan Bowman, a 50-year-old Trump supporter said during Trump's recent Cincinnati rally.
"We're going to have a revolution and take them out of office if that's what it takes. There's going to be a lot of bloodshed. But that's what it's going to take," he continued. "I would do whatever I can for my country."
Ah
Yeah
Uh
I really hope those luminaries are on a watchlist somewhere. But it really goes to show that right-wing terrorism is in the cards. It only takes a few who are just crazy enough to want it and just smart enough not to get caught in time.
Although I wonder if the Democrats can parlay this and other extreme Republican sentiments, like McCain's warning/promise to block Clinton's Court appointees, to galvanize support for kicking the GOP out of power wholesale over the next decade or so. We need something to get the base motivated for 2018.
No. I am saying that general "anti-war" ideology is incoherent... because it is. It requires that reality contort to fit the world view, and that there must be a non-violent solution to violent problems. Iran and Iraq are/were not similar actors (we essentially already had a deal with Iraq and they were supposedly violating it, for one, Iran has methods in place to enact public will, even if imperfect, Iran does not have a history of being belligerent on the world stage and besides Israel's claim is an otherwise stabilizing influence on the region, whereas Saddam was less so.)
This isn't an "anti-war" thing, it's an anti-Iraq War II thing.
There wasn't a good reason to go into Iraq for various reasons, one of which was that America was already in a huge war with Afghanistan at the time. Fighting a two front war isn't smart, even if Bush had reason for it. He didn't.
Saddam was a power hungry, tyrannical asshole who did deserve to go down - unfortunately that wasn't the right time nor the right reasons to do it. Instead his administration lied to the world to get them on board via Colin Powell, and fought with the CIA over the intel and consolations they got. Both are things she should have noticed were she paying attention to the media, it wasn't all hippies holding hands singing kumbaya protesting. Nah, I'm thinking she did because it was a safe vote, which is her MO. The Bush administration was riding high from their post-9/11 enthusiasm along with a compliment media, Fox News at its height and a weakened Democratic membership in congress.
Iraq was an enemy of bin Laden, which Bush's admin ignored. Once Saddam was gone his country fell to pieces due to mismanagement which reached satire levels of incompetence and corruption - as well as providing the means for ISIS to consolidate itself from the remnants down the road. As well as providing ample opportunity for Al Queada to recruit and expand their territory.
This was a massive mistake on Hillary's part by voting "for." With numerous consequent for lives lost and countries ruined in its aftermath. Damn right she should feel about participating in that.
e case that Obama saw through the administration in a way that Clinton did not, not having been buttressed from experience prior. Or it could also be that his views on war are dumb, and that Clinton's more realist approach and arguments shaped his foreign policy more than his initial view. I can't be sure which one is the case. I am not sure it really matters, since Obama is not infallible
Bin Laden died on Obama's watch, al Queada slowly faded into obscurity and America's reputation got a much needed boost internationally post-Bush. He isn't gun shy about war when he feels its required. He found a way to gain victories without leaving huge body counts for American soldiers. Obama didn't need to be infallible, merely thoughtful about the world stage and less trigger happy with American soldiers lives. Which is a good thing. Hillary should have learnt a lot from him while he's in office.
Having experience isn't necessarily great, McCain has experience too. Being a war hawk is far from ideal IMO. That's one flaw in Hillary I'm concerned with - not every problem with war requires a hammer to fix.
Harry Dresden on
+8
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
"We're going to have a revolution and take them out of office if that's what it takes. There's going to be a lot of bloodshed. But that's what it's going to take," he continued. "I would do whatever I can for my country."
And this is why I'm not at all worried. This guys talks like a coup is something they can throw together like a BBQ or a campaign rally. He is a 50 something white guy from a middle class household who has enough disposable income and sway at work to leave for a day for a political rally. He isn't going to fight the US government, law enforcement, the national guard, and the army. Certainly not. Other people will do that as part of the coup certainly. He will wear the ballcaps and show up at the rallies and feel real patriotic about it, but if you suggest to him to grab a rifle and chart the local military base or police station this guy with dither and change the topic.
The people who start revolutions are the young and disenfranchised. The people with literally nothing left to lose that hasn't been taken away. Movements like Occupy Wallstreet and Black Lives Matter have far more likelihood of starting an actual revolution than a Trump campaign rally, and even then the likelihood is still next to nothing with the structure of US Media, governance, and economy. There are too many ways to advance, even if the cards are stacked against you, to really turn a massive amount of people towards armed revolt as an attractive option.
Certainly some of these Trump fellows will be Stormfront/Sovereign Citizen types that will likely have a bunch of local shootings of federal land and law enforcement, that I expect. And that is absolute shit and is entirely Trump's fault for fomenting these ideas. But there won't be some kind of revolution because the people who are talking about it would have to give up their baby-boomer inflated economy jobs late in their careers, risk losing their probably decent owned houses and cars, and have to put their own asses on the line. Most of these people are the ones who dodged the draft in Vietnam or who were quite comfortable sending my generation to Iraq twice but would never sign up for the national guard or any form of civic engagement.
Don't be worried about revolution. Be worried about domestic terrorism, certainly. But, even then, our law enforcement community and local emergency planning offices are getting reaaaaaally good at stopping these events. Despite the amount that make headlines, many many more are stopped and arrested as a footnote on page three.
Trump supporters don't have to be revolutionaries to be dangerous, all they need is another McVeigh. You're right 99% of Trump supporters won't do anything (excluding Sovereign citizens and random spree killers, and failed assassins*, which I'm sure will be a thing. Ugh.) unfortunately not all Trump supporters aren't dangerous. White Supremacy already has big numbers involved in organized crime alone via the Neo Nazis, and KKK, too. Those guys know how to hurt people and have the support to back themselves up, some are in law enforcement.
edit: Trumps' antics are radicalizing his base, which is another factor we haven't had in a long time. The FBI are going to have a spike in white supremacist terrorism again, you can count on it.
* like what Obama's lived through his terms in office
The FBI are going to have a spike in white supremacist terrorism again, you can count on it.
Of course, they won't call it terrorism. It'll be a "few bad apples" or a "mentally disturbed young man," regardless of the manifesto and premeditation.
Why, yes, I am bitter about the Charleston church shooting, why do you ask?
+37
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited October 2016
NBC/SurveyMonkey (change since last NBC/SM)
Clinton 46 (–)
Trump 40 (–1)
Johnson 8 (–)
Stein 4 (–)
H2H
Clinton 51
Trump 43
Too small a lead. Rigged!
Absalon on
+2
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
No. I am saying that general "anti-war" ideology is incoherent... because it is. It requires that reality contort to fit the world view, and that there must be a non-violent solution to violent problems. Iran and Iraq are/were not similar actors (we essentially already had a deal with Iraq and they were supposedly violating it, for one, Iran has methods in place to enact public will, even if imperfect, Iran does not have a history of being belligerent on the world stage and besides Israel's claim is an otherwise stabilizing influence on the region, whereas Saddam was less so.)
This isn't an "anti-war" thing, it's an anti-Iraq War II thing.
There wasn't a good reason to go into Iraq for various reasons, one of which was that America was already in a huge war with Afghanistan at the time. Fighting a two front war isn't smart, even if Bush had reason for it. He didn't.
Saddam was a power hungry, tyrannical asshole who did deserve to go down - unfortunately that wasn't the right time nor the right reasons to do it. Instead his administration lied to the world to get them on board via Colin Powell, and fought with the CIA over the intel and consolations they got. Both are things she should have noticed were she paying attention to the media, it wasn't all hippies holding hands singing kumbaya protesting. Nah, I'm thinking she did because it was a safe vote, which is her MO. The Bush administration was riding high from their post-9/11 enthusiasm along with a compliment media, Fox News at its height and a weakened Democratic membership in congress.
Iraq was an enemy of bin Laden, which Bush's admin ignored. Once Saddam was gone his country fell to pieces due to mismanagement which reached satire levels of incompetence and corruption - as well as providing the means for ISIS to consolidate itself from the remnants down the road. As well as providing ample opportunity for Al Queada to recruit and expand their territory.
This was a massive mistake on Hillary's part by voting "for." With numerous consequent for lives lost and countries ruined in its aftermath. Damn right she should feel about participating in that.
e case that Obama saw through the administration in a way that Clinton did not, not having been buttressed from experience prior. Or it could also be that his views on war are dumb, and that Clinton's more realist approach and arguments shaped his foreign policy more than his initial view. I can't be sure which one is the case. I am not sure it really matters, since Obama is not infallible
Bin Laden died on Obama's watch, al Queada slowly faded into obscurity and America's reputation got a much needed boost internationally post-Bush. He isn't gun shy about war when he feels its required. He found a way to gain victories without leaving huge body counts for American soldiers. Obama didn't need to be infallible, merely thoughtful about the world stage and less trigger happy with American soldiers lives. Which is a good thing. Hillary should have learnt a lot from him while he's in office.
Having experience isn't necessarily great, McCain has experience too. Being a war hawk is far from ideal IMO. That's one flaw in Hillary I'm concerned with - not every problem with war requires a hammer to fix.
But Trump would have the best most expensive hammers to bring to that war.
See, the thing is, Hillary might be a hawk compared to other Democrats. But would any of the pub candidates really be less prone to interventionism? I mean, execept for this bozo that wants nato to fall apart, and for us to abandon Japan and Korea as well.
See, the thing is, Hillary might be a hawk compared to other Democrats. But would any of the pub candidates really be less prone to interventionism? I mean, execept for this bozo that wants nato to fall apart, and for us to abandon Japan and Korea as well.
I'm not comparing her to the GOP, since they're all war hawks and worse by default. That they are worse on the issue isn't something that's good for Hillary. She should be judged by the Democratic party's terms, not the GOP's.
He doesn't want to abandon those alliances so much. It's just that they are very nice alliances and it would be a shame if something were to happen to them, that's why it would be in their best interest to pony up a bit of extra cash to make sure nothing does.
See, the thing is, Hillary might be a hawk compared to other Democrats. But would any of the pub candidates really be less prone to interventionism? I mean, execept for this bozo that wants nato to fall apart, and for us to abandon Japan and Korea as well.
I'm not comparing her to the GOP, since they're all war hawks and worse by default. That they are worse on the issue isn't something that's good for Hillary. She should be judged by the Democratic party's terms, not the GOP's.
You go to vote with the candidate you have, not the one you wish you had.
And to be honest, I didn't really get the impression that bernie ever had much more serious foreign policy ideas than, like... Johnson. But, that's not really relevant to the current thread, so let's let it drop?
See, the thing is, Hillary might be a hawk compared to other Democrats. But would any of the pub candidates really be less prone to interventionism? I mean, execept for this bozo that wants nato to fall apart, and for us to abandon Japan and Korea as well.
I'm not comparing her to the GOP, since they're all war hawks and worse by default. That they are worse on the issue isn't something that's good for Hillary. She should be judged by the Democratic party's terms, not the GOP's.
You go to vote with the candidate you have, not the one you wish you had.
And to be honest, I didn't really get the impression that bernie ever had much more serious foreign policy ideas than, like... Johnson. But, that's not really relevant to the current thread, so let's let it drop?
I didn't say it was an excuse to not vote for her, it's a flaw she bought with her as the Democratic nominee.
No. I am saying that general "anti-war" ideology is incoherent... because it is. It requires that reality contort to fit the world view, and that there must be a non-violent solution to violent problems. Iran and Iraq are/were not similar actors (we essentially already had a deal with Iraq and they were supposedly violating it, for one, Iran has methods in place to enact public will, even if imperfect, Iran does not have a history of being belligerent on the world stage and besides Israel's claim is an otherwise stabilizing influence on the region, whereas Saddam was less so.)
This isn't an "anti-war" thing, it's an anti-Iraq War II thing.
There wasn't a good reason to go into Iraq for various reasons, one of which was that America was already in a huge war with Afghanistan at the time. Fighting a two front war isn't smart, even if Bush had reason for it. He didn't.
Saddam was a power hungry, tyrannical asshole who did deserve to go down - unfortunately that wasn't the right time nor the right reasons to do it. Instead his administration lied to the world to get them on board via Colin Powell, and fought with the CIA over the intel and consolations they got. Both are things she should have noticed were she paying attention to the media, it wasn't all hippies holding hands singing kumbaya protesting. Nah, I'm thinking she did because it was a safe vote, which is her MO. The Bush administration was riding high from their post-9/11 enthusiasm along with a compliment media, Fox News at its height and a weakened Democratic membership in congress.
Iraq was an enemy of bin Laden, which Bush's admin ignored. Once Saddam was gone his country fell to pieces due to mismanagement which reached satire levels of incompetence and corruption - as well as providing the means for ISIS to consolidate itself from the remnants down the road. As well as providing ample opportunity for Al Queada to recruit and expand their territory.
This was a massive mistake on Hillary's part by voting "for." With numerous consequent for lives lost and countries ruined in its aftermath. Damn right she should feel about participating in that.
e case that Obama saw through the administration in a way that Clinton did not, not having been buttressed from experience prior. Or it could also be that his views on war are dumb, and that Clinton's more realist approach and arguments shaped his foreign policy more than his initial view. I can't be sure which one is the case. I am not sure it really matters, since Obama is not infallible
Bin Laden died on Obama's watch, al Queada slowly faded into obscurity and America's reputation got a much needed boost internationally post-Bush. He isn't gun shy about war when he feels its required. He found a way to gain victories without leaving huge body counts for American soldiers. Obama didn't need to be infallible, merely thoughtful about the world stage and less trigger happy with American soldiers lives. Which is a good thing. Hillary should have learnt a lot from him while he's in office.
Having experience isn't necessarily great, McCain has experience too. Being a war hawk is far from ideal IMO. That's one flaw in Hillary I'm concerned with - not every problem with war requires a hammer to fix.
I feel compelled to post my usual reminder that the "al-Qaeda faded away into obscurity" thing is only true if "obscurity" means "doesn't appear as often in the US media." I've pointed this out numerous times when the subject has come up, but the short version is that AQ is much stronger now than they were at the beginning of Obama's term, or at the beginning of Bush's for that matter. And some of this can be blamed on policies enacted by Obama and Clinton. AQIM's takeover of northern Mali in 2012 (which resulted in an ongoing French military intervention) would most likely not have happened were it not for NATO's 2011 intervention in Libya, for instance. And the largest AQ affiliate ever (Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria) arose as a result of the US and its allies arming the Syrian rebels (how much blame the US itself deserves for this, rather than Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar, is debatable)
See, the thing is, Hillary might be a hawk compared to other Democrats. But would any of the pub candidates really be less prone to interventionism? I mean, execept for this bozo that wants nato to fall apart, and for us to abandon Japan and Korea as well.
I'm not comparing her to the GOP, since they're all war hawks and worse by default. That they are worse on the issue isn't something that's good for Hillary. She should be judged by the Democratic party's terms, not the GOP's.
You go to vote with the candidate you have, not the one you wish you had.
And to be honest, I didn't really get the impression that bernie ever had much more serious foreign policy ideas than, like... Johnson. But, that's not really relevant to the current thread, so let's let it drop?
I don't understand the point of posts like this. Nearly everyone in this thread is voting Clinton, even those who have a negative opinion of her policies, like myself. Does this mean we should not criticize her? This is debate and discourse, not the Dem campaign boards; why are we so reluctant to critically analyze our preferred candidate?
+21
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
See, the thing is, Hillary might be a hawk compared to other Democrats. But would any of the pub candidates really be less prone to interventionism? I mean, execept for this bozo that wants nato to fall apart, and for us to abandon Japan and Korea as well.
I'm not comparing her to the GOP, since they're all war hawks and worse by default. That they are worse on the issue isn't something that's good for Hillary. She should be judged by the Democratic party's terms, not the GOP's.
You go to vote with the candidate you have, not the one you wish you had.
And to be honest, I didn't really get the impression that bernie ever had much more serious foreign policy ideas than, like... Johnson. But, that's not really relevant to the current thread, so let's let it drop?
I don't understand the point of posts like this. Nearly everyone in this thread is voting Clinton, even those who have a negative opinion of her policies, like myself. Does this mean we should not criticize her? This is debate and discourse, not the Dem campaign boards; why are we so reluctant to critically analyze our preferred candidate?
Exactly, don't suppress criticism of Hilary. Last thing any of us needs is to end up in the same reinforcement bubble that Fox news perpetuates.
Hilary is problematic in several areas. She is also clearly the best choice out of this cycle by any rational, fact based standard. That doesn't mean her history with Wall Street and her foreign policy credentials aren't worth investigating and talking about.
On the other hand, is be nice if there were actually specifics, instead of just hawk = bad. like how her no fly zone plan Is likely to result in a direct conflict with Russia(n air assets)
My opinion about Clinton on foreign policy is that she's haunted by Rwanda and Bosnia during her husband's first term. In Rwanda, the US did nothing, and 800,000 people died. In Bosnia, the US did nothing for a long time, and over a million people died - and when NATO finally intervened, they were generally able to restore order in their area of operations fairly quickly. In humanitarian terms, in terms of legacy, I'm sure that she sees them as disasters on her husband's watch.
I think that Clinton believes in the power of government to improve the world, and that extends to military force as a method that a government can use. I think that she believes in the power of America to make the world a better, safer place. And I think that that thought guides her foreign policy.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
No. I am saying that general "anti-war" ideology is incoherent... because it is. It requires that reality contort to fit the world view, and that there must be a non-violent solution to violent problems. Iran and Iraq are/were not similar actors (we essentially already had a deal with Iraq and they were supposedly violating it, for one, Iran has methods in place to enact public will, even if imperfect, Iran does not have a history of being belligerent on the world stage and besides Israel's claim is an otherwise stabilizing influence on the region, whereas Saddam was less so.)
This isn't an "anti-war" thing, it's an anti-Iraq War II thing.
There wasn't a good reason to go into Iraq for various reasons, one of which was that America was already in a huge war with Afghanistan at the time. Fighting a two front war isn't smart, even if Bush had reason for it. He didn't.
Saddam was a power hungry, tyrannical asshole who did deserve to go down - unfortunately that wasn't the right time nor the right reasons to do it. Instead his administration lied to the world to get them on board via Colin Powell, and fought with the CIA over the intel and consolations they got. Both are things she should have noticed were she paying attention to the media, it wasn't all hippies holding hands singing kumbaya protesting. Nah, I'm thinking she did because it was a safe vote, which is her MO. The Bush administration was riding high from their post-9/11 enthusiasm along with a compliment media, Fox News at its height and a weakened Democratic membership in congress.
Iraq was an enemy of bin Laden, which Bush's admin ignored. Once Saddam was gone his country fell to pieces due to mismanagement which reached satire levels of incompetence and corruption - as well as providing the means for ISIS to consolidate itself from the remnants down the road. As well as providing ample opportunity for Al Queada to recruit and expand their territory.
This was a massive mistake on Hillary's part by voting "for." With numerous consequent for lives lost and countries ruined in its aftermath. Damn right she should feel about participating in that.
e case that Obama saw through the administration in a way that Clinton did not, not having been buttressed from experience prior. Or it could also be that his views on war are dumb, and that Clinton's more realist approach and arguments shaped his foreign policy more than his initial view. I can't be sure which one is the case. I am not sure it really matters, since Obama is not infallible
Bin Laden died on Obama's watch, al Queada slowly faded into obscurity and America's reputation got a much needed boost internationally post-Bush. He isn't gun shy about war when he feels its required. He found a way to gain victories without leaving huge body counts for American soldiers. Obama didn't need to be infallible, merely thoughtful about the world stage and less trigger happy with American soldiers lives. Which is a good thing. Hillary should have learnt a lot from him while he's in office.
Having experience isn't necessarily great, McCain has experience too. Being a war hawk is far from ideal IMO. That's one flaw in Hillary I'm concerned with - not every problem with war requires a hammer to fix.
I feel compelled to post my usual reminder that the "al-Qaeda faded away into obscurity" thing is only true if "obscurity" means "doesn't appear as often in the US media." I've pointed this out numerous times when the subject has come up, but the short version is that AQ is much stronger now than they were at the beginning of Obama's term, or at the beginning of Bush's for that matter. And some of this can be blamed on policies enacted by Obama and Clinton. AQIM's takeover of northern Mali in 2012 (which resulted in an ongoing French military intervention) would most likely not have happened were it not for NATO's 2011 intervention in Libya, for instance. And the largest AQ affiliate ever (Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria) arose as a result of the US and its allies arming the Syrian rebels (how much blame the US itself deserves for this, rather than Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar, is debatable)
What's even more worrying isn't just that AQ is stronger, but that they've shifted towards a more general political entity regionally. They are doing what the Islamic State tried to do but far more competently and without making themselves any bigger of a target than they are now (providing basic services, medical services etc. to locals).
He doesn't want to abandon those alliances so much. It's just that they are very nice alliances and it would be a shame if something were to happen to them, that's why it would be in their best interest to pony up a bit of extra cash to make sure nothing does.
If divorced from Trump, and perhaps without the implied threat, this opinion is not all that unreasonable or even uncommon. Obama shares it, as did his first Secretary of Defense (Robert Gates). The US pays more than it should, or its allies less, or both.
On the other hand, is be nice if there were actually specifics, instead of just hawk = bad. like how her no fly zone plan Is likely to result in a direct conflict with Russia(n air assets)
Harry Dresden made a somewhat specific argument for why the 2003 Iraq War was bad. I think the badness of that war is commonly accepted among most circles at this point.
Clinton championed the intervention in Libya, and the result of the government's overthrow was massively destablizing for the country itself and for northern Africa as a whole. This view is not as ubiquitous as condemnation of the Iraq invasion but is also fairly common; even Obama calls the Libyan intervention the worst mistake of his presidency.
Arguments about US policy towards Syria usually require a more in depth discussion that would probably be better off in the Middle East thread.
Afghanistan was almost universally regarded as a "good" war in the US foreign policy establishment for a while, but I think that view has started to become less unanimous over the last few years.
Kaputa on
+4
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
If Clinton wins young voters by 48, as the recent millennial poll suggests, that's MORE than double the 2012 margin for Obama v Romney.
The little trolls over at /pol/ and Breitbart must feel so lonely.
On the other hand, is be nice if there were actually specifics, instead of just hawk = bad. like how her no fly zone plan Is likely to result in a direct conflict with Russia(n air assets)
Why isn't that enough on its own? I don't think that complaint would be good for any Democrat running for president, Hillary isn't special here.
Nothing new, but as previously mentioned a good summary for an audience that likely hasn't seen any of it before.
Details his history of failure in business up to his reinvention as a brand, and how he turned that around into scamming people and is now scamming the nation.
Hillary as a hawk largely seems to rest on the Iraq vote. People don't call Obama a hawk to nearly the same extent for instance. And while Hillary did advocate for intervention in the Libyan Civil War, so did most Western governments before she did and I'd point to Syria as a reason why acting like the low level second civil war that broke out two years later is far from the worst case scenario of nonintervention. The politization Benghazi attack seems to have forced people into a rhetorical concession that Libya was clearly a problematic move which I don't think is born up by facts or shared by international analysis. No one in France is condemning Hollande as a warmonger due to Libya and everyone hates him. And for that matter, no one really condemns Obama over it.
As for Syria, there's a massive humanitarian crisis that also adds to regional instability and gives ISIS a territorial home and funding. The conflict needs to end and Assad would only be able to hold power if we propped him up with the most inhumane draconian regressions. Russia is fine with that but it goes against our values and interests. Russia isn't particularly reasonable, so some confrontation is necessary. If they blatantly violate a no fly zone that doesn't mean we start WWIII. It would give us international justification for further sanctions that would weaken their ability to meddle in Syria and weaken the Putin's regime. And Putin knows Hillary is strong enough to do this and get those sanctions. Thats why they worked against her in the primary and now in the general.
The FBI are going to have a spike in white supremacist terrorism again, you can count on it.
Of course, they won't call it terrorism. It'll be a "few bad apples" or a "mentally disturbed young man," regardless of the manifesto and premeditation.
Why, yes, I am bitter about the Charleston church shooting, why do you ask?
If only the GOP had the courage to call it "Radical Evangelical Terrorism" . . . .
Hillary as a hawk largely seems to rest on the Iraq vote. People don't call Obama a hawk to nearly the same extent for instance. And while Hillary did advocate for intervention in the Libyan Civil War, so did most Western governments before she did and I'd point to Syria as a reason why acting like the low level second civil war that broke out two years later is far from the worst case scenario of nonintervention. The politization Benghazi attack seems to have forced people into a rhetorical concession that Libya was clearly a problematic move which I don't think is born up by facts or shared by international analysis. No one in France is condemning Hollande as a warmonger due to Libya and everyone hates him. And for that matter, no one really condemns Obama over it.
Even Obama condemns Obama over it! The GOP Benghazi thing has pretty nothing to do with the criticism of the 2011 intervention; as far as I can tell the people who go on about the former rarely criticize the latter, as most of them were in favor of bombing the Libyan government to begin with.
I don't know enough about public opinion on the intervention in France to speak to that, though if you have more info it's something I'd be curious to learn more about.
edit - and the reason relate the Libyan intervention to Clinton is that she was strongly in favor of it, whereas Obama was ambivalent and Biden, IIRC, was against. That said, Obama certainly shares the blame, or even deserves most of it as the final decider.
As for Syria, there's a massive humanitarian crisis that also adds to regional instability and gives ISIS a territorial home and funding. The conflict needs to end and Assad would only be able to hold power if we propped him up with the most inhumane draconian regressions. Russia is fine with that but it goes against our values and interests. Russia isn't particularly reasonable, so some confrontation is necessary. If they blatantly violate a no fly zone that doesn't mean we start WWIII. It would give us international justification for further sanctions that would weaken their ability to meddle in Syria and weaken the Putin's regime. And Putin knows Hillary is strong enough to do this and get those sanctions. Thats why they worked against her in the primary and now in the general.
How would it provide such justification? Regardless of morality, Russia is legitimately acting on request of the Syrian government, just as the US is in Iraq. The US has no legal cover for any action in Syria and would certainly be unable to get a UNSC resolution in favor of a no-fly zone. Russia would not be violating any international laws in violating a unilaterally imposed US no-fly zone over its ally's territory, and if the US shot down Syrian planes we would likely be in violation of international law. Given how much difficulty the US had in getting its EU allies to sanction Russia in response to their annexation of part of a European country, I am extremely skeptical that they would jump on board the sanctions train over the much murkier situation in Syria.
I have never found the argument that Clinton (and democrats in general, like Obama) have adopted hawkish policies because of residual guilt over not intervening quick enough in the genocides of the 1990s very compelling. For almost my entire life, at any given point, there's been a gruesome genocide occurring somewhere or another. The American foreign policy establishment only seems to feel guilty and compelled to intervene when that intervention serves long term strategic interests, like maintaining dominance over a sphere of influence, or acting against proxies for rival powers (Russia, usually - we've been unsurprisingly more reluctant to get involved in the Sinosphere).
Massive human rights catastrophes in areas where we're very dominant (like Mexico and central America) or where we have little strategic interest (sub-Saharan Africa) never seem to engender getting involved in a military capacity like conflicts in MENA inevitably do.
In this aspect the US seems basically like most other great powers throughout history.
Duffel on
+9
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
She said they were engaged in "boy talk, and he was led on -- like, egged on -- from the host to say dirty and bad stuff."
"This was all organized from the opposition. And with the details ... did they ever check the background of these women? They don't have any facts."
Melania Trump defended her husband's criticism on the campaign trail of his accusers' looks -- an implication that the women who have alleged his misconduct aren't attractive enough to sexually assault.
I think the pro-Clinton argument re: no-fly zones is that she's always said it would have to be done as an agreement with the Russians, not us unilaterally setting up a no-fly zone. Which means it will likely never happen. So then proposing the no-fly zone is less about being hawkish and more that she wants to say she'd be 'doing more' than we currently in Syria / to fight ISIS.
Nothing new, but as previously mentioned a good summary for an audience that likely hasn't seen any of it before.
Details his history of failure in business up to his reinvention as a brand, and how he turned that around into scamming people and is now scamming the nation.
According to business associates who spoke to Newsweek, Trump kept a folder of nude images of his wife, which he would pull out during meetings to show potential partners.
Like, there's just no way that Trump wouldn't seize on Putin as the scary looming threat to our nation that he alone has the strength to protect us from. That's a no-brainer for appealing to the foaming-at-the-mouth elements of the GOP base. Rule one in feigning foreign policy knowledge is "Russia is bad" (Palin can see it from her house, etc), and that only goes more so due to the events that have taken place between 2012 and now. The rest of the GOP candidates would be tripping over themselves to demonstrate who liked Putin the least, and yet Trump is towing the Russian propaganda line like it's no one's business.
Moreover, Trump is probably the single most believable person in the world to accept a bribe from a foreign leader, and Putin is the single most believable person in the world to be offering that bribe.
If anything, I'd almost bet the FBI is probably sitting on damning evidence that Trump is in Putin's pocket already, but they're stuck in the double bind that if they release this information it will only play directly into Trump's "election is rigged" narrative as evidence that the feds are conspiring against him.
Can I just say how excellent the plan was of trotting out Trump's wife to insist her husband has poor impulse control to be goaded into admitting sexual assault by a low-level media douche for a tabloid TV show?
He’d have done better if he’d never gone into business. In 1982, Trump reported to New Jersey regulators a personal net worth of $321 million, built largely on his father’s connections, as well as loans and guarantees for bank credit. Two years later, a Trump lieutenant testified that his worth had not changed much. In 2004, in reviewing his application for a loan, Deutsche Bank concluded he was worth $788 million. Trump now makes the highly dubious claim that he is worth $10 billion; Forbes estimates that the real number is $3.7 billion. That’s a lot of money, to be sure, but suppose Trump had never done any deals and instead sold all of his assets back in 1982 and invested them in a fund based on the Standard & Poor’s 500 index. With dividends reinvested, he would have increased his wealth to $535 million by 1985. By 2004, his personal wealth would have increased to $5.9 billion. And three years ago, he would have exceeded what he claims to be worth now by more than $1 billion; today, he would be worth more than $13 billion, just under three times the Forbes estimate.
Posts
Clinton 54
Trump 28
Johnson 7
Stein 3
Woo!
As a Bostonian, I'm a little embarrassed by that 28%.
This is the Cradle of Liberty- Trump support should be a rounding error.
Edit: However, I deeply appreciate that Stein is at the very bottom even in her home state. I have vain hope that this will be the last time she bothers.
http://gothamist.com/2016/10/17/trump_clinton_threats.php
Ah
Yeah
Uh
This fucking guy
I really hope those luminaries are on a watchlist somewhere. But it really goes to show that right-wing terrorism is in the cards. It only takes a few who are just crazy enough to want it and just smart enough not to get caught in time.
Although I wonder if the Democrats can parlay this and other extreme Republican sentiments, like McCain's warning/promise to block Clinton's Court appointees, to galvanize support for kicking the GOP out of power wholesale over the next decade or so. We need something to get the base motivated for 2018.
This isn't an "anti-war" thing, it's an anti-Iraq War II thing.
There wasn't a good reason to go into Iraq for various reasons, one of which was that America was already in a huge war with Afghanistan at the time. Fighting a two front war isn't smart, even if Bush had reason for it. He didn't.
Saddam was a power hungry, tyrannical asshole who did deserve to go down - unfortunately that wasn't the right time nor the right reasons to do it. Instead his administration lied to the world to get them on board via Colin Powell, and fought with the CIA over the intel and consolations they got. Both are things she should have noticed were she paying attention to the media, it wasn't all hippies holding hands singing kumbaya protesting. Nah, I'm thinking she did because it was a safe vote, which is her MO. The Bush administration was riding high from their post-9/11 enthusiasm along with a compliment media, Fox News at its height and a weakened Democratic membership in congress.
Iraq was an enemy of bin Laden, which Bush's admin ignored. Once Saddam was gone his country fell to pieces due to mismanagement which reached satire levels of incompetence and corruption - as well as providing the means for ISIS to consolidate itself from the remnants down the road. As well as providing ample opportunity for Al Queada to recruit and expand their territory.
This was a massive mistake on Hillary's part by voting "for." With numerous consequent for lives lost and countries ruined in its aftermath. Damn right she should feel about participating in that.
Bin Laden died on Obama's watch, al Queada slowly faded into obscurity and America's reputation got a much needed boost internationally post-Bush. He isn't gun shy about war when he feels its required. He found a way to gain victories without leaving huge body counts for American soldiers. Obama didn't need to be infallible, merely thoughtful about the world stage and less trigger happy with American soldiers lives. Which is a good thing. Hillary should have learnt a lot from him while he's in office.
Having experience isn't necessarily great, McCain has experience too. Being a war hawk is far from ideal IMO. That's one flaw in Hillary I'm concerned with - not every problem with war requires a hammer to fix.
And this is why I'm not at all worried. This guys talks like a coup is something they can throw together like a BBQ or a campaign rally. He is a 50 something white guy from a middle class household who has enough disposable income and sway at work to leave for a day for a political rally. He isn't going to fight the US government, law enforcement, the national guard, and the army. Certainly not. Other people will do that as part of the coup certainly. He will wear the ballcaps and show up at the rallies and feel real patriotic about it, but if you suggest to him to grab a rifle and chart the local military base or police station this guy with dither and change the topic.
The people who start revolutions are the young and disenfranchised. The people with literally nothing left to lose that hasn't been taken away. Movements like Occupy Wallstreet and Black Lives Matter have far more likelihood of starting an actual revolution than a Trump campaign rally, and even then the likelihood is still next to nothing with the structure of US Media, governance, and economy. There are too many ways to advance, even if the cards are stacked against you, to really turn a massive amount of people towards armed revolt as an attractive option.
Certainly some of these Trump fellows will be Stormfront/Sovereign Citizen types that will likely have a bunch of local shootings of federal land and law enforcement, that I expect. And that is absolute shit and is entirely Trump's fault for fomenting these ideas. But there won't be some kind of revolution because the people who are talking about it would have to give up their baby-boomer inflated economy jobs late in their careers, risk losing their probably decent owned houses and cars, and have to put their own asses on the line. Most of these people are the ones who dodged the draft in Vietnam or who were quite comfortable sending my generation to Iraq twice but would never sign up for the national guard or any form of civic engagement.
Don't be worried about revolution. Be worried about domestic terrorism, certainly. But, even then, our law enforcement community and local emergency planning offices are getting reaaaaaally good at stopping these events. Despite the amount that make headlines, many many more are stopped and arrested as a footnote on page three.
edit: Trumps' antics are radicalizing his base, which is another factor we haven't had in a long time. The FBI are going to have a spike in white supremacist terrorism again, you can count on it.
* like what Obama's lived through his terms in office
Of course, they won't call it terrorism. It'll be a "few bad apples" or a "mentally disturbed young man," regardless of the manifesto and premeditation.
Why, yes, I am bitter about the Charleston church shooting, why do you ask?
Clinton 46 (–)
Trump 40 (–1)
Johnson 8 (–)
Stein 4 (–)
H2H
Clinton 51
Trump 43
Too small a lead. Rigged!
I'm not comparing her to the GOP, since they're all war hawks and worse by default. That they are worse on the issue isn't something that's good for Hillary. She should be judged by the Democratic party's terms, not the GOP's.
You go to vote with the candidate you have, not the one you wish you had.
And to be honest, I didn't really get the impression that bernie ever had much more serious foreign policy ideas than, like... Johnson. But, that's not really relevant to the current thread, so let's let it drop?
I didn't say it was an excuse to not vote for her, it's a flaw she bought with her as the Democratic nominee.
Exactly, don't suppress criticism of Hilary. Last thing any of us needs is to end up in the same reinforcement bubble that Fox news perpetuates.
Hilary is problematic in several areas. She is also clearly the best choice out of this cycle by any rational, fact based standard. That doesn't mean her history with Wall Street and her foreign policy credentials aren't worth investigating and talking about.
My opinion about Clinton on foreign policy is that she's haunted by Rwanda and Bosnia during her husband's first term. In Rwanda, the US did nothing, and 800,000 people died. In Bosnia, the US did nothing for a long time, and over a million people died - and when NATO finally intervened, they were generally able to restore order in their area of operations fairly quickly. In humanitarian terms, in terms of legacy, I'm sure that she sees them as disasters on her husband's watch.
I think that Clinton believes in the power of government to improve the world, and that extends to military force as a method that a government can use. I think that she believes in the power of America to make the world a better, safer place. And I think that that thought guides her foreign policy.
What's even more worrying isn't just that AQ is stronger, but that they've shifted towards a more general political entity regionally. They are doing what the Islamic State tried to do but far more competently and without making themselves any bigger of a target than they are now (providing basic services, medical services etc. to locals).
Clinton championed the intervention in Libya, and the result of the government's overthrow was massively destablizing for the country itself and for northern Africa as a whole. This view is not as ubiquitous as condemnation of the Iraq invasion but is also fairly common; even Obama calls the Libyan intervention the worst mistake of his presidency.
Arguments about US policy towards Syria usually require a more in depth discussion that would probably be better off in the Middle East thread.
Afghanistan was almost universally regarded as a "good" war in the US foreign policy establishment for a while, but I think that view has started to become less unanimous over the last few years.
The little trolls over at /pol/ and Breitbart must feel so lonely.
Why isn't that enough on its own? I don't think that complaint would be good for any Democrat running for president, Hillary isn't special here.
Nothing new, but as previously mentioned a good summary for an audience that likely hasn't seen any of it before.
Details his history of failure in business up to his reinvention as a brand, and how he turned that around into scamming people and is now scamming the nation.
As for Syria, there's a massive humanitarian crisis that also adds to regional instability and gives ISIS a territorial home and funding. The conflict needs to end and Assad would only be able to hold power if we propped him up with the most inhumane draconian regressions. Russia is fine with that but it goes against our values and interests. Russia isn't particularly reasonable, so some confrontation is necessary. If they blatantly violate a no fly zone that doesn't mean we start WWIII. It would give us international justification for further sanctions that would weaken their ability to meddle in Syria and weaken the Putin's regime. And Putin knows Hillary is strong enough to do this and get those sanctions. Thats why they worked against her in the primary and now in the general.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
It is extremely eerie how consistently Trump's words and actions fit with what you would expect from a purposeful campaign to destabilize the nation.
I think it will be very fascinating to see what the FBI uncovers once this election is over.
If only the GOP had the courage to call it "Radical Evangelical Terrorism" . . . .
I don't know enough about public opinion on the intervention in France to speak to that, though if you have more info it's something I'd be curious to learn more about.
edit - and the reason relate the Libyan intervention to Clinton is that she was strongly in favor of it, whereas Obama was ambivalent and Biden, IIRC, was against. That said, Obama certainly shares the blame, or even deserves most of it as the final decider.
How would it provide such justification? Regardless of morality, Russia is legitimately acting on request of the Syrian government, just as the US is in Iraq. The US has no legal cover for any action in Syria and would certainly be unable to get a UNSC resolution in favor of a no-fly zone. Russia would not be violating any international laws in violating a unilaterally imposed US no-fly zone over its ally's territory, and if the US shot down Syrian planes we would likely be in violation of international law. Given how much difficulty the US had in getting its EU allies to sanction Russia in response to their annexation of part of a European country, I am extremely skeptical that they would jump on board the sanctions train over the much murkier situation in Syria.
Massive human rights catastrophes in areas where we're very dominant (like Mexico and central America) or where we have little strategic interest (sub-Saharan Africa) never seem to engender getting involved in a military capacity like conflicts in MENA inevitably do.
In this aspect the US seems basically like most other great powers throughout history.
welp
It's also what you'd expect from a candidate who literally cannot understand the concept of losing, to be fair.
Moreover, Trump is probably the single most believable person in the world to accept a bribe from a foreign leader, and Putin is the single most believable person in the world to be offering that bribe.
If anything, I'd almost bet the FBI is probably sitting on damning evidence that Trump is in Putin's pocket already, but they're stuck in the double bind that if they release this information it will only play directly into Trump's "election is rigged" narrative as evidence that the feds are conspiring against him.
A terrific idea with zero obvious drawbacks!
Do not engage the Watermelons.