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

[Ramsay Gimp]

 

You are arguing that Trump is positioned to challenge Clinton from the left on foreign policy, as he calls for extreme escalation of an ongoing war.

Extreme escalation is just hyperbole, and phrasing it as fact doesn't make it so. Apart from the fact we kill families all the time, Trump's remark was a whole 2 seconds, of-the-cuff, where he could have been easily thinking out loud. I've been assuming he really advocated doing that only for the sake of argument

There are differences in the particulars of Trump's and Clinton's foreign policy, of course. You've named some. 

That's charitable of you. In fact I provided you with a concrete list of 6-7 examples verifying my claim, but you've gone too far to admit defeat now! 

Here's another- Trump, in line with the mainstream Republican position, opposed the recent agreement with Iran but says they must be prevented from getting the bomb, which he says is an existential threat to Israel, which he staunchly supports. That's a more antagonistic position toward Iran than Clinton's, and puts us on a path to war with Iran.

-Despite saying its the worst deal ever, Trump has repeatedly rejected the idea of negating or ignoring the Iran deal. He says that he intends to honor the agreement now that its been signed. 

-Re. bolded: Obama says the exact same thing. Isn't that the whole point of the nuclear deal?

-Go back a few pages, I posted a link of Trump realtalking Israel to a group of Jewish Republicans. He was booed for questioning their commitment to peace, said that the Palestinians would have to get some things they want too, and accused the Israel lobby of buying politicians with their money. He's not Israel's lapdog, far from it. You have to distinguish platitudes like "I love Israel!" or "I'm the most militaristic person here!" from actual policy statements and ideas. Trump is framing his alternative foreign policy in nationalist rhetoric, so he can appeal to GOP voters. But the details are less hawkish than practically everyone else

-Clinton opportunistically criticized the Iran deal when she had the chance to come to Obama's defense. You give no support for the statement that Trump wants to "put us on a path to war with Iran" so yeah...

-Even if all your comment was true (its not), Trump still wouldn't come close to Hillary's record and stated policy preferences. 

Why is it so important to you that Trump be the more hawkish one, despite all the evidence saying the opposite? No need to die on a hill for Hillary's honor here...

[Ramsay Gimp]

Let's just call it a draw, agree to disagree, whatever. This argument is becoming a wankfest over our egos rather than anything constructive. I'm glad you liked the Genghis Khan shout-out, even if you took it a tad literally in your zeal to insult me.

Partisan sniping about which candidate has the best election chances, and all our awesome insights about voting behavior and blah blah isn't worth getting worked up about.  This isn't MSNBC and no one cares about our predictions anyway

[Ramsay Gimp]

 I'll even forgive the toxic homophobia* on your part, even though that kind of hate-filled rhetoric is what's preventing westeros.org from coming together to pass meaningful legistlation 

 

*Actually, there IS anything wrong with that

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Lol. "Let me get in a couple more shots before calling it a draw and magnanimously declaring a truce"

[Ramsay Gimp]

Lol. "Let me get in a couple more shots before calling it a draw and magnanimously declaring a truce"

So you don't think he bought it? I just gave my best impression of a guy taking the high road but its hard with no experience

[MerenthaClone]

Nobody should be under any illusions that Hillary is incredibly interventionist.  She is, and trying to argue that is a losing strategy, especially when you're trying to compare her record to a person with literally no record at all.  On top of that, I don't especially trust Trump either way with what he says, so he's effectively a cipher saying that his plan is to "do something, and when I do something its gonna be great.  You'll love it.  Yeah."

I expect Trump's policy to potentially drastically change when he is actually exposed to a position that requires him to care about geopolitical realities.  I don't expect Clinton's to, for better or worse.  (Worse, but it could be far worse.). So far, Trump has hit every problem with the largest, simplest blunt object he can, as far as I can tell.  I see no reason why he's approach foreign policy any differently.

 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

 

Extreme escalation is just hyperbole, and phrasing it as fact doesn't make it so. Apart from the fact we kill families all the time, Trump's remark was a whole 2 seconds, of-the-cuff, where he could have been easily thinking out loud. I've been assuming he really advocated doing that only for the sake of argument

1) "Bomb the shit out of ISIS" 2) Ground troops into Iraq 3) Target civilians deliberately.

All of this is escalation.

What's amazing is that a few posts ago you praised "the Don" for honest talk on what it will take to defeat ISIS, compared to the usual half measures. Now you want to ignore his words so you can hold onto your laughable assertion that he's to Clinton's left on foreign policy.

 

That's charitable of you. In fact I provided you with a concrete list of 6-7 examples verifying my claim, but you've gone too far to admit defeat now!

You're confused. I'm contesting the claim that Trump can challenge Clinton from the left, not that there are differences between them. Indeed, in one of my first posts I called them differently hawkish!

 

-Despite saying its the worst deal ever, Trump has repeatedly rejected the idea of negating or ignoring the Iran deal. He says that he intends to honor the agreement now that its been signed. 

-Re. bolded: Obama says the exact same thing. Isn't that the whole point of the nuclear deal?

-Go back a few pages, I posted a link of Trump realtalking Israel to a group of Jewish Republicans. He was booed for questioning their commitment to peace, said that the Palestinians would have to get some things they want too, and accused the Israel lobby of buying politicians with their money. He's not Israel's lapdog, far from it. You have to distinguish platitudes like "I love Israel!" or "I'm the most militaristic person here!" from actual policy statements and ideas. Trump is framing his alternative foreign policy in nationalist rhetoric, so he can appeal to GOP voters. But the details are less hawkish than practically everyone else

-Clinton opportunistically criticized the Iran deal when she had the chance to come to Obama's defense. You give no support for the statement that Trump wants to "put us on a path to war with Iran" so yeah...

-Even if all your comment was true (its not), Trump still wouldn't come close to Hillary's record and stated policy preferences.

-How many of Clinton's positions on past issues have you brought up? Trump was opposed to the Iran deal. That was a 'hawkish' position. Are past positions now off the table? I don't think the should be.

-No, that's not the exact same thing since Obama... supported the deal he negotiated.

-Yes, and in those same remarks he said Obama's Iran Deal was the worst thing to happen to Israel and questioned Hillary Clinton's support for Israel, going on to accuse her of lacking the "strength or energy to help Israel." Is this one of the criticisms 'from the left' you had in mind?

-Clinton openly supports the Iran deal. Opposing a deal with Iran makes the only avenue for stopping Iran from developing a nuclear development war. Since Trump opposed the deal we were able to negotiate, he was favoring a path that restricted diplomatic options and made war more likely. Now he says he won't immediately tear it up, but it's the worst thing ever to happen to Israel. Truly a dovish position.

-Again, it's not a question of sameness. It's a question of whether someone with Trump's hawkish positions- different from Clinton's though they may be!- has an avenue to attract voters from the left by criticizing Clinton's positions from his vantage. The painfully obvious answer is no.

Why is it so important to you that

Trump be the more hawkish one,

despite all the evidence saying the opposite? No need to die on a hill for Hillary's honor here...[/quote]

Allow me to quote myself: "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."

Read more carefully please.

 

I'll even forgive the toxic homophobia* on your part, even though that kind of hate-filled rhetoric is what's preventing westeros.org from coming together to pass meaningful legistlation 

 

*Actually, there IS anything wrong with that

 Accusing you of figuratively sucking Donald Tump's dick is just a colorful manner of expressing how sycophantic your comments about him are. If you were to literally suck his dick due to mutual sexual attraction between the two of you I assure you I would entirely approve. What I don't approve of is your thoroughgoing bias in Trump's favor, especially in combination with accusations that I'm being partisan in failing to view Trump as less hawkish than another candidate that I absolutely refuse to support because she is too hawkish.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Accusing you of figuratively sucking Donald Tump's dick is just a colorful manner of expressing how sycophantic your comments about him are. If you were to literally suck his dick due to mutual sexual attraction between the two of you I assure you I would entirely approve.

 LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL 

 This has to be a parody, right? If not I'm saving it for future generations. 

[Wise Fool]

Arguably, torturing people (prisoners, presumably; but maybe just anyone in Trump's List of Undesirables) left and right just because they allegedly deserve it is a form of escalation as well.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

 LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL 

 This has to be a parody, right? If not I'm saving it for future generations. 

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Am I really ok with you literally blowing Donald Trump? Yes. Was my comment intended as a joke? Yes. 'Parody' is not the right word for it, but I'm glad you found it funny. 

[MerenthaClone]

Arguably, torturing people (prisoners, presumably; but maybe just anyone in Trump's List of Undesirables) left and right just because they allegedly deserve it is a form of escalation as well.

Also their families, don't forget that lovely idea.  As mad as I still am about the US shelling MSF with no repercussions at all, at least Clinton isn't proudly declaring she'll commit war crimes against an enemy who has repeatedly said their goal is to try to provoke the US into invading and thereby increasing jihadist sympathy across the region.  They saw how effective at creating radicals the invasion of Iraq was.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Also their families, don't forget that lovely idea.  As mad as I still am about the US shelling MSF with no repercussions at all, at least Clinton isn't proudly declaring she'll commit war crimes against an enemy who has repeatedly said their goal is to try to provoke the US into invading and thereby increasing jihadist sympathy across the region.  They saw how effective at creating radicals the invasion of Iraq was.

Yet somehow they have recruits traveling all the way from China and the U.S. to join their caliphate, even though we're not reenacting the "Rains of Castamere" on their people. Are we waiting for them to spontaneously realize that ISIS is bad and America is good, because we're only bombing them lightly? How delusional are we? We'd have to change our major policies in the region to see a real drop in Jihadist recruitment or attacks against us. Like stop supporting Israel, withdraw from all Muslim lands, stop supporting Arab dictatorships, etc. Our rules of engagement and ending waterboarding have failed to win us hearts and minds. Why should the locals give a shit when we still bomb them daily? You really think they're grateful for our restraint?

 We tried winning local sympathy already in Iraq, and it only worked until we left and the old grudges resurfaced. So it never was for real, no real progress was made. As soon as the Sunnis got pissed off again, ISIS was back and running the show. Is that what we have to look forward to? A new jihadist threat, and a new bombing campaign, every time the Sunnis and Shias can't work out their shit? Are the choices between that and constant occupation? 

[TrackerNeil]

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.

Was Bill Clinton accused of sexual assault? I don't recall that, but maybe I am misremembering.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Was Bill Clinton accused of sexual assault? I don't recall that, but maybe I am misremembering.

He was accused i think but nothing came of it because the judge tossed it out. With good reason if I'm remembering law school correctly

[Commodore]

Was Bill Clinton accused of sexual assault? I don't recall that, but maybe I am misremembering.

yes, by Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey

[jarl the climber]

From what I remember Willey was originally going to write a book that was based on her and Bill having a consensual relationship. As far as Broaddrick goes, I can't recall that she was ever really discredited. 

[mcbigski]

On top of that, I don't especially trust Trump either way with what he says, so he's effectively a cipher saying that his plan is to "do something, and when I do something its gonna be great.  You'll love it.  Yeah."

Sounds a lot like POTUS....

[The Marquis de Leech]

In happier news, Jimmy Carter beats cancer:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/president-jimmy-carter-says-cancer-brain-gone-n475056

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Yet somehow they have recruits traveling all the way from China and the U.S. to join their caliphate, even though we're not reenacting the "Rains of Castamere" on their people. Are we waiting for them to spontaneously realize that ISIS is bad and America is good, because we're only bombing them lightly? How delusional are we? We'd have to change our major policies in the region to see a real drop in Jihadist recruitment or attacks against us. Like stop supporting Israel, withdraw from all Muslim lands, stop supporting Arab dictatorships, etc. Our rules of engagement and ending waterboarding have failed to win us hearts and minds. Why should the locals give a shit when we still bomb them daily? You really think they're grateful for our restraint?

 We tried winning local sympathy already in Iraq, and it only worked until we left and the old grudges resurfaced. So it never was for real, no real progress was made. As soon as the Sunnis got pissed off again, ISIS was back and running the show. Is that what we have to look forward to? A new jihadist threat, and a new bombing campaign, every time the Sunnis and Shias can't work out their shit? Are the choices between that and constant occupation? 

Once again you advoacte "Genocide or GTFO".  You think "The Rains of Castermere" is a legitimate foreign policy goal.  Dear God, that wouldn't inflame the anger and synoathy of Indonesian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi Muslims now would it?

[elarte]

I have a co-worker with a "Ben Carson for President" bumper sticker in her cubicle.  I made mention of it one day and she, an older woman maybe in her mid to late 50s, said, "I'm just tired of people calling me a racist because I vote Republican."

 

BEN CARSON 2016:  SEE, WE'RE NOT RACISTS!