US Politics - We're through the looking glass here people

[all swedes are racist]

What does this mean? Trump has no policy record, all we know about how he would govern comes from his rhetoric. He's said he's willing to send ground troops back to Iraq to fight ISIS. He supports bombing ISIS and even openly advocates war crimes, saying that we should target the families of ISIS members.

Trump is less hawkish than Clinton only if we completely ignore his words.

exactly. I mean how many times has Trump voted to wage war, or executed aggressive militaristic solutions to foreign policy problems as part? Zero!

[Ramsay Gimp]

What does this mean? Trump has no policy record, all we know about how he would govern comes from his rhetoric. He's said he's willing to send ground troops back to Iraq to fight ISIS. He supports bombing ISIS and even openly advocates war crimes, saying that we should target the families of ISIS members.

Trump is less hawkish than Clinton only if we completely ignore his words.

Is there a single candidate who says they won't bomb ISIS? I wish there was but that's not the world we live in.

The only difference is that Trump says "I'd bomb the shit out of them", whereas Hillary says "America needs to lead, we can't just stand by because leadership matters in a global world. That's why I'd enact a no-fly zone in Syria RIGHT NOW, so we can fight Assad and Russia and ISIS at the same time!! Oh, did I mention our moderate rebel allies? Isn't it about time we sent them lots of money and guns? LOOK HOW SMART I AM BECAUSE I WANT TO DO EVERYTHING"

To people who like to feel intelligent without thinking anything through, Clinton's statements sound smarter. Because they're full of empty slogans and meaningless (but inspirational-sounding) claptrap that has been honed for decades to justify American hegemony. But if you look at the meat of Trump's position it is much more reasonable and much more honest. It's also much less aggressive, since Trump doesn't advocate attacking people who are fighting ISIS like Hillary does. 

War crimes you're gonna have to bark up another tree. We initiate wars too frequently, and too recklessly, but we don't fight them too ruthlessly. We agonize about hearts and minds that will never be ours and dance around the fact that war requires murdering lots of people. War is not not about convincing foreigners to like us, or accept Israel's right to exist, or watch the Kardashians. 

Killing a large number of civilians is a sad but necessary element of any scenario where ISIS goes away. I don't like it either, which is why I'm non-interventionist. But (referring to people generally, not you) please don't cheer for America to go war and then cry when a goddamn war happens. Americans are nauseatingly awful about doing that, because we've been so sheltered from the effects of war throughout our history. 

[Ramsay Gimp]

exactly. I mean how many times has Trump voted to wage war, or executed aggressive militaristic solutions to foreign policy problems as part? Zero!

He doesn't have Hillary's impressive foreign policy record. Which means (I gather from the talking heads) he hasn't destroyed an impressive amount of countries like she has. 

Trump may be an asshole, but I don't remember him ever giggling like a schoolgirl because someone was sodomized with a knife and then tortured to death. Hillary did that. 

[Shryke]

He doesn't NOW, but he would have a long time ago.

When? What candidates or politicians are you thinking he sounds like here? What point in history are you referring to here?

[all swedes are racist]

He doesn't have Hillary's impressive foreign policy record. Which means (I gather from the talking heads) he hasn't destroyed an impressive amount of countries like she has.

well, yeah-- for that matter, neither have I. still not in any way a sign I'm qualified to be president either. Trump hasn't broken under space-madness and slaughtered his crew of astronauts, doesn't mean he's gonna be an awesome commander of a space station.

can't comment on the knife thing as I'm unfamiliar with the episode you are referring to

[Ramsay Gimp]

can't comment on the knife thing as I'm unfamiliar with the episode you are referring to

Gadaffi. Hillary chucked about his death and said "We came, I conquered," or some other PLEASE PRETEND I HAVE A PENIS bullshit. It's not so much the laughing at torture that bothers me; it's more that her comment shows zero reflection on her part about the military invasion she helped bring about. After her support for invading Iraq (to this day), such blasé arrogance is unforgivable. But since she brought down a "genocidal" dictator, got to look tough on camera, and no American troops died it obviously wasn't a war. It was a cisgendered police action or whatever the trendy name is now.

Never mind the fact that "genocide" was not actually occurring in Libya (unless that word has lost all meaning, like "xenophobic" has ).

Never mind that NATO was only authorized to protect Libyan civilians under attack, but chose to fly into regime territory where there was no fighting and then bombed civilians instead. 

Never mind that America skipped town as soon as the big bad dictator was dead, because they knew no one would give a fuck after that.

Never mind that Libya is now in constant civil war and is a major stronghold of ISIS. Ignore all that, and focus on how Trump doesn't phrase "you Jews" correctly. 

[Biglose]

He doesn't have Hillary's impressive foreign policy record. Which means (I gather from the talking heads) he hasn't destroyed an impressive amount of countries like she has. 

Trump may be an asshole, but I don't remember him ever giggling like a schoolgirl because someone was sodomized with a knife and then tortured to death. Hillary did that. 

Well, what I do not really understand is, that if you kind of want what trump is promising, would not bernie sanders be much more of your guy?

Sure he is not openly racist, but he is pointing to denmark as an example. Their immigrationpolicy is restrictiv to say the least. (Sanders voting record shows as much too)

And of course all the policies he is suggesting (and is honestly support which again is obvious from his voting record) won't work with illegal immigration.
 

Which gets me to the point to ask in a race trump Vs sanders would their actually be any rational not to vote for Sanders except "I hate black and brown people and I need somebody who at leasts acts like he or she shares my hate"?

From the social policies to foreign policy sanders is more america first (not corporate america first!, thought) than trump. At least thats my read.

[Ramsay Gimp]

 

Sure he is not openly racist

 I love how you say this like it would disqualify him in my mind  

And of course all the policies he is suggesting (and is honestly support which again is obvious from his voting record) won't work with illegal immigration.

Bernie has said some interesting things about immigration. But it seems to me like he's torn between love for the working man and love for immigrant groups (not saying immigrants don't work, so don't even try you guys). Immigration isn't just about the economics though.  It's also about slow demographic shifts, which will result in white people becoming a minority some time in the future (this should get some nice reactions ). For any other group this would be called "displacement" and loudly decried. So shifting the conversation about massive third-world immigration is more important than building a literal wall. 

Which gets me to the point to ask in a race trump Vs sanders would their actually be any rational not to vote for Sanders except "I hate black and brown people and I need somebody who at leasts acts like he or she shares my hate"?

 Putting aside that he's an open and avowed socialist, my biggest obstacle is a (seeming) lack of conviction on issues I care about. Sanders has passion and dedication on income inequality, no doubt, but if that's not a huge concern for me (even on a ideological level) what else is he going to address? I've never seen Bernie make a strong statement on foreign policy one way or the other. If I'm going to vote for a goddamn socialist he at least better be anti-war. Bernie just seems like a wishy-washy liberal interventionist, or just unsure/indecisive/uninterested in foreign affairs. In our political culture, a President with no strong convictions or instincts about foreign policy will be pushed into stupid wars. Like Obama, who has repeatedly shown that he doesn't really care about wars overseas, and would rather move on to something less depressing. But this means he can't muster the energy to aggressively fight the war party, and he ends up giving into pressure and starting a new military conflict. It's happened several times, like clockwork.

 And does he ever talk about the NSA and civil liberties? I remember his classic "Edward Snowden broke the law" remark but thats it.

It seems to me that Bernie is a strong champion on one or two issues, which I respect, but other than that he'd be another Obama. 

From the social policies to foreign policy sanders is more america first (not corporate america first!, thought) than trump. At least thats my read.

How is Trump corporate America first?  He is speaking to working people and thats where his support comes from. He isn't anti-big business in principle like Sanders is, but neither are most people.

[Altherion]

Well, what I do not really understand is, that if you kind of want what trump is promising, would not bernie sanders be much more of your guy?

Sanders had his chance and he failed on nearly all counts. He did nothing impressive in the debates, but that's not even the worst of it. Fate served him a golden chance to separate himself from Clinton and take a stand against the politics of racial divisiveness. He was there in the 1960s and he had to have known the rhetoric of those days. I believe for a while he even tried to use it, but in the end, he unconditionally surrendered. I'm not sure why he did that -- maybe he genuinely changed his mind or maybe decided to chase minority votes -- but it does not matter. The minorities will vote for Clinton in any case and he lost whatever chance he had to win over anyone else. At the same time, Clinton pivoted in the direction of his views of income inequality (her wealthier supporters need not worry -- she will almost certainly move back to the center for the general election) and Sanders is left with basically nothing. He currently trails Clinton by nearly a 2:1 margin (58% to 30% according to this poll) and, unless there is yet another Clinton scandal in the next few weeks, there's no real way for him to make up that kind of ground.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Is there a single candidate who says they won't bomb ISIS? I wish there was but that's not the world we live in.

The only difference is that Trump says "I'd bomb the shit out of them", whereas Hillary says "America needs to lead, we can't just stand by because leadership matters in a global world. That's why I'd enact a no-fly zone in Syria RIGHT NOW, so we can fight Assad and Russia and ISIS at the same time!! Oh, did I mention our moderate rebel allies? Isn't it about time we sent them lots of money and guns? LOOK HOW SMART I AM BECAUSE I WANT TO DO EVERYTHING"

To people who like to feel intelligent without thinking anything through, Clinton's statements sound smarter. Because they're full of empty slogans and meaningless (but inspirational-sounding) claptrap that has been honed for decades to justify American hegemony. But if you look at the meat of Trump's position it is much more reasonable and much more honest. It's also much less aggressive, since Trump doesn't advocate attacking people who are fighting ISIS like Hillary does. 

War crimes you're gonna have to bark up another tree. We initiate wars too frequently, and too recklessly, but we don't fight them too ruthlessly. We agonize about hearts and minds that will never be ours and dance around the fact that war requires murdering lots of people. War is not not about convincing foreigners to like us, or accept Israel's right to exist, or watch the Kardashians. 

Killing a large number of civilians is a sad but necessary element of any scenario where ISIS goes away. I don't like it either, which is why I'm non-interventionist. But (referring to people generally, not you) please don't cheer for America to go war and then cry when a goddamn war happens. Americans are nauseatingly awful about doing that, because we've been so sheltered from the effects of war throughout our history. 

I do not support Clinton, in large part because of her foreign policy positions. That said, I think it's completely backwards to criticize Clinton for "empty slogans" while praising Trump for the supposedly more honest "bomb the shit out of them." Trump is the candidate of empty slogans, and not just on this issue.

Trump is calling for an escalation of the war against ISIS to the extent of specifically targeting families of ISIS members. That's not the same as the fact that civilians are inevitably killed in any war, unintentionally or negligently, that's calling for specifically targeting civilians. That is an indisputable war crime. Whether or not you take the (I think wrong and frankly bizarre) position that non-intervention is preferable to total war but total war is preferable to limited intervention, it remains a war crime.

The point I commented on is whether Trump can challenge Clinton from the left on foreign policy. When Trump espouses support not only for escalating an ongoing war but also for deliberately targeting civilians, he doesn't get to be characterized as "less aggressive" or "less hawkish" than Clinton just because he's disinterested in toppling Assad. He's at best just differently-aggressive.

[zelticgar]

It's basically not ever going to be brought up in a debate, it is not a debatable issue and no moderator is going there. So, it would take it being brought up on an unrelated question to come up at all. That also won't happen and if it did it would be shut down hard and immediately. It could come up in random Trump or pundit comments, but at a debate? No way

We'll see. I think it will.

Interestingly, Hillary was recently asked by a spectator about some of the other women that have accused her hubby of improprieties. Apparently Hillary tweeted out her support of sexual assault victims - they have the right to be heard, believed, and supported. Pretty common sense stuff but when the spectator asked her if that applies to Paula Jones and the other women who accused Bill, Hillary had to clarify her position.

[Ramsay Gimp]

 

The point I commented on is whether Trump can challenge Clinton from the left on foreign policy. When Trump espouses support not only for escalating an ongoing war but also for deliberately targeting civilians, he doesn't get to be characterized as "less aggressive" or "less hawkish" than Clinton just because he's disinterested in toppling Assad. He's at best just differently-aggressive.

Trump says we should win the war we're already in, and be willing to work with former adversaries to accomplish our shared goals.

Clinton says we should try to start some new wars, on top of those we're already fighting, but we can't work with anyone unless they're perfect. 

So why the fuck should I care which candidate would kill the family members of ISIS? Tactics like that are fucking trivial when compared to the question of whether we ought to go to war at all. You're taking the common liberal route of focusing on minutia to avoid the real issue. Advocating for more war but leaving the nasty bits unmentioned makes Hillary worse than Trump, not better. People just get the vapors because Trump refuses to sugarcoat his opinion, and we prefer lots of sugar when talking about our brave heroes and the awesome things we make them do around the world. Fact is, the military kill innocent families all the time. Are we better people because we don't say it out loud? The American public demands dead families every time they demand Obama "do something" about ISIS. Accordingly, our President has chosen to kill thousands of Arab families by slowly sending troops back into a catastrophe they can't win. These families were sacrificed for Obama's approval rating, nothing more, but Trump is somehow the monster? Nah, he's just once again bringing an uncomfortable truth out in the open, intentionally or not.

If our country is going to be a militaristic superpower/hegemon, I'd prefer we strike terror in our enemies if it prevents us fighting a new war (but also the same war) every two years. 

The USA treats war like a game, or a partisan feud, or boring geography, and nobody seems bothered that these wars tnever end. As long as its nameless Afghans getting killed and not American troops, it could go on forever with no complaint. Everyone has adjusted to our constant occupation of a foreign country as normal, the default state of affairs, and nobody acknowledges how insane that is. We love war in America, and yet we also love being the good guy, so we've settled on the solution of not asking for any details about it. Fuck that. The hypocritical and willfully blind attitude  attitude most Americans take toward war is far more disgusting than Trump's comments, frankly. How long can we hide behind arbitrary bullshit and changing the subject before we realize that war means killing?

And if Trump's hypothetical terror tactics ended the war on ISIS faster, they'd be a kindness anyway. 

[Wise Fool]

Trump's a fucking fascist scumbag. A racist idiot. A bloviating blowhard. People support him the same reason people supported Hitler. He utters the platitudes you want to hear, looks like the kind of person you want to lead, and you excuse away all the warning signs because he just seems so strong and so sensible.

[Ramsay Gimp]

"Platitudes" does not describe Trump. 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Trump says we should win the war we're already in, but be willing to work with former adversaries to accomplish our shared goals.

Clinton says we should try to start some new wars, on top of those we're already fighting, but we can't work with anyone unless they're perfect. 

Why the fuck should I care which candidate would kill the family members of ISIS? Tactics are trivial compared to the question of whether to go to war in the first place.   Advocating for more war, but leaving the nasty bits unmentioned makes Hillary worse than Trump, not better. I see the necessity of things like Geneva but hand-wringing about how to be moral in a killing contest our country never had to be in bores me right to tears. The military kill innocent families all the time, thats a fact. We've voted for it, by majority, in every election for god knows how long. Are we better people because we don't say it out loud? The American public demands dead families every time they demand Obama "do something" about ISIS. Accordingly, our President has chosen to kill thousands of Arab families by slowly sending troops back into a catastrophe they can't win. These families were sacrificed for Obama's approval rating, nothing more, but Trump is somehow the monster? The Don is once again bringing an uncomfortable truth out in the open, intentionally or not. If our country is going to be a militaristic hegemon, i'd prefer we strike terror in our enemies if it could prevent us fighting a new war (but also the same war) every two years. 

Our country treats it all like a game, or a partisan feud, or boring geography, and nobody seems bothered by wars that never end. As long as its nameless Afghans getting killed and not American troops, it could go on forever with no complaint. We've gotten used to constant occupation of a foreign country as normal and nobody acknowledges how insane that is. The public loves war, but we also love being the good guy, so we've settled on the solution of not asking about the details of what we do. Well fuck that. The hypocritical and willfully blind attitude  attitude most Americans take toward war is far more disgusting than Trump's comments, frankly. How long can we hind behind arbitrary bullshit and changing the subject before we realize that war means killing? 

And if Trump's hypothetical terror tactics ended the war faster, they'd be a kindness anyway. 

Advocating for an escalation of an ongoing war makes Trump not able to challenge Clinton from a less hawkish position (and his preference for escalation is not limited to just ramped up bombing which deliberately targets civilians, but also to putting ground troops in Iraq). This is the very simple and obvious point I'm making. When you argue that escalation is superior to limited intervention, you're not disputing this. And, no, Clinton is not proposing starting a new war, her position is basically in line with current policy except for support for a no fly zone to further hamper the Assad regime that we are already actively opposing by other means.

I really don't care about your attacks on a straw man position ("nobody" is bothered by wars that never end? ), apologies for war crimes, or bizarre preference for brutality over limited intervention. All of these things are beside the point of your initial comment that I responded to.

Go on jerking off "the Don," just don't kid yourself into thinking anyone actually critical of Clinton's (thoroughly mainstream) foreign policy from the left is going to be impressed. I'm not even asking you or anyone to call Trump worse or more hawkish on foreign policy, just obviously not to Clinton's left.

[The Marquis de Leech]

A long, long time ago.  Like,  to the point where I would consider it invalid to make such statements. 

The last time a Democratic Presidential candidate ran to the Right of the Republican was 1904.

[Wise Fool]

"Platitudes" does not describe Trump. 

No. It describes many of the ideas he espouses. Tough talk on immigration. Tough talk on terrorism. "Make America Great Again." And so forth.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Advocating for an escalation of an ongoing war makes Trump not able to challenge Clinton from a less hawkish position (and his preference for escalation is not limited to just ramped up bombing which deliberately targets civilians, but also to putting ground troops in Iraq). This is the very simple and obvious point I'm making. When you argue that escalation is superior to limited intervention, you're not disputing this. And, no, Clinton is not proposing starting a new war, her position is basically in line with current policy except for support for a no fly zone to further hamper the Assad regime that we are already actively opposing by other means.

I really don't care about your attacks on a straw man position ("nobody" is bothered by wars that never end? ), apologies for war crimes, or bizarre preference for brutality over limited intervention. All of these things are beside the point of your initial comment that I responded to.

Go on jerking off "the Don," just don't kid yourself into thinking anyone actually critical of Clinton's (thoroughly mainstream) foreign policy from the left is going to be impressed. I'm not even asking you or anyone to call Trump worse or more hawkish on foreign policy, just obviously not to Clinton's left.

Clinton has advocated ground troops, so has Trump. Fair enough.

But Clinton wants a no-fly zone. He does not.

Clinton wants to arm the rebels. He does not.

Clinton wants to topple Assad. Nay for Trump.

Clinton rides the anti-Russia bandwagon. Trump wants to get along.

 Clinton wants greater military aid to Ukraine. He does not.

Clinton cheered for Iraq and Libya. Trump did not.

Nope, no pattern here! 

Genghis Khan could run to Hillary's left on foreign policy. The fact she is within the mainstream only proves the larger point I was making. I'm sorry you don't want to actually think about real issues instead of partisan sniping (again proving my point) but I'm correct either way.  

[Gears of the Beast]

 

Interestingly, Hillary was recently asked by a spectator about some of the other women that have accused her hubby of improprieties. Apparently Hillary tweeted out her support of sexual assault victims - they have the right to be heard, believed, and supported. Pretty common sense stuff but when the spectator asked her if that applies to Paula Jones and the other women who accused Bill, Hillary had to clarify her position.

That "clarification" doesn't make much sense both in light of the question and in general. Would one still not be forced to believe Bill Clinton's rape accusers if they were to adhere to her position?  

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Clinton has advocated ground troops, so has Trump. Fair enough.

But Clinton wants a no-fly zone. He does not.

Clinton wants to arm the rebels. He does not.

Clinton wants to topple Assad. Nay for Trump.

Clinton rides the anti-Russia bandwagon. Trump wants to get along.

 Clinton wants greater military aid to Ukraine. He does not.

Clinton cheered for Iraq and Libya. Trump did not.

The fact she is within the mainstream only proves the larger point I was making. I'm sorry you don't want to actually think about big topics, but I'm correct about the initial petty dispute as well. 

I don't want to argue the supposed "big topics" with you because I think your position is a contemptible, deranged, and small minded. You attempt to puff it up as hard nosed and incisive, but it's totally beneath consideration. That's what I think of your position. I have no respect for your opinion but there are no points of fact to engage with when it comes to your preferences, so I'm not going to bother.

 

Genghis Khan could run to Hillary's left on foreign policy. The fact she is within the mainstream only proves the larger point I was making. I'm sorry you don't want to actually think about real issues instead of partisan sniping (again proving my point) but I'm correct either way.  

It's incredible that you, the purported non-partisan libertarian, take Donald Trump's dick out of your mouth just long enough to make accusations that Hillary Clinton is more bellicose than Genghis Khan and that I'm engaged in partisan sniping!