US General Election Thread III: Clinton vs. Trump

[Ashmoria]

he doesn't need policy anymore, he has breitbart.com

Just policy? Given the questionable state of Trump's finances, having Breitbart work for him (and worship him, massage his ego, prep him up for the inevitable questions about his brain size), you'd think Breitbart saved Trump from my favorite post-election scenario.

dare I ask?

[Ashmoria]

What record? What large-scale wars did Clinton start during her tenure as Secretary of State? What wars has she advocated starting? Do any of them compare to what Trump said?

Just quickly? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and more subtle, but no less damaging interventions throughout Latin America such as in Honduras in 2009.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/27/hil ... raq-syria/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magaz ... -hawk.html

you think she started those wars??

[Dahon]

What record? What large-scale wars did Clinton start during her tenure as Secretary of State? What wars has she advocated starting? Do any of them compare to what Trump said?

Just quickly? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and more subtle, but no less damaging interventions throughout Latin America such as in Honduras in 2009.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/27/hil ... raq-syria/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magaz ... -hawk.html

Many of the interventions cited in your articles followed years if not decades of internal turmoil following the collapse of central authority (usually ruthlessly authoritarian) with the arrival of armies directed by previous administrations. Whether or not following up on the messes created by previous administrations is debatable, but I think it's unfair to put the blame for those messes squarely on Hillary when she didn't start it in the first place.

[Dahon]

Just policy? Given the questionable state of Trump's finances, having Breitbart work for him (and worship him, massage his ego, prep him up for the inevitable questions about his brain size), you'd think Breitbart saved Trump from my favorite post-election scenario.

dare I ask?

No need -- I've already said it before and I'll say it again -- begging his ass off at the Castro in San Francisco.

[Eol Sha]

Trump policy staff quitting over not being paid.

Jason Miller, a campaign spokesman, said that the D.C. policy shop has been "very successful" but added that "no such oral agreements were made” in respect to paying the staffers.

Is there a legal definition for "scam" because this sure as hell sounds like it?

[Hittanryan]

What record? What large-scale wars did Clinton start during her tenure as Secretary of State? What wars has she advocated starting? Do any of them compare to what Trump said?

Just quickly? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and more subtle, but no less damaging interventions throughout Latin America such as in Honduras in 2009.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/27/hil ... raq-syria/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magaz ... -hawk.html

Those sources don't really support your claim. The Foreign Policy article lists a number of interventions that Clinton in fact opposed. She has disavowed her initial support for the Iraq War, calling it a mistake. It was the Bush Administration who badly mishandled the war in Afghanistan, allowing the Taliban to recover and forcing the Obama Administration to respond. She disagreed with drone strikes in Pakistan, and as Secretary of State had no authority over the CIA's drone program. Killing Osama bin Laden was the right call. Syria was not an invasion but a botched effort at covertly supplying armed groups. The only actual major military deployment she supported as Secretary was in Libya, which was not a unilateral US effort.

Compare that to Trump's claim we need to send 20-30,000 troops to Syria and seize Iraqi oil resources. Compare that to Trump repeatedly asking why we have nukes if we're not going to use them.

[Bakery Hill]

Just quickly? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and more subtle, but no less damaging interventions throughout Latin America such as in Honduras in 2009.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/27/hil ... raq-syria/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magaz ... -hawk.html

you think she started those wars??

This is a ridiculous question. The US rarely openly starts wars. It "intervenes". Aggressive military intervention in local conflicts, in the interest of maintaining a US lead liberal order, is something Clinton has done unashamedly. It's a part of her self conscious world view as a disciple of Kissinger. She says as much herself.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 22de46ac7c

[Hittanryan]

you think she started those wars??

This is a ridiculous question. The US rarely openly starts wars. It "intervenes". Aggressive military intervention in local conflicts, in the interest of maintaining a US lead liberal order, is something Clinton has done unashamedly. It's a part of her self conscious world view as a disciple of Kissinger. She says as much herself.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 22de46ac7c

That's not what I asked. I asked specifically "What large-scale wars did Clinton start during her tenure as Secretary of State? What wars has she advocated starting? Do any of them compare to what Trump said?"

[Ashmoria]

you think she started those wars??

This is a ridiculous question. The US rarely openly starts wars. It "intervenes". Aggressive military intervention in local conflicts, in the interest of maintaining a US lead liberal order, is something Clinton has done unashamedly. It's a part of her self conscious world view as a disciple of Kissinger. She says as much herself.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 22de46ac7c

she in no way started any of them.

she voted to allow bush2 the option of military intervention when she was a senator. it turned out to be a mistake to believe the president of the united states when he said it was a pressure tactic and would only happen if all else failed. who would have thought you cant trust the president? in any case she didn't start that war OR the Afghanistan war. no senator did.

Libya and Syria are civil war type conflicts. no American started them.

[Bakery Hill]

Just quickly? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and more subtle, but no less damaging interventions throughout Latin America such as in Honduras in 2009.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/27/hil ... raq-syria/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magaz ... -hawk.html

Many of the interventions cited in your articles followed years if not decades of internal turmoil following the collapse of central authority (usually ruthlessly authoritarian) with the arrival of armies directed by previous administrations. Whether or not following up on the messes created by previous administrations is debatable, but I think it's unfair to put the blame for those messes squarely on Hillary when she didn't start it in the first place.

Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes. Inherited chaos from Bush's adventures, both of which however were backed by Clinton. Libya and Syria, nope, all product of the Obama and Clinton administration. I mean you could argue that they've learned from previous debacles by refusing to deploy ground troops. But then again they're actively undermining established states by effectively arming and supplying jihadists so...

At any rate you lot seem to be so used to fending off attacks from Trumpites on this topic, that you think I'm personally going after Clinton in some moral emotional way. In this case all I'm saying is judging from her words and deeds she will be an interventionist hawkish president on foreign policy.

[Ashmoria]

Many of the interventions cited in your articles followed years if not decades of internal turmoil following the collapse of central authority (usually ruthlessly authoritarian) with the arrival of armies directed by previous administrations. Whether or not following up on the messes created by previous administrations is debatable, but I think it's unfair to put the blame for those messes squarely on Hillary when she didn't start it in the first place.

Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes. Inherited chaos from Bush's adventures, both of which however were backed by Clinton. Libya and Syria, nope, all product of the Obama and Clinton administration. I mean you could argue that they've learned from previous debacles by refusing to deploy ground troops. But then again they're actively undermining established states by effectively arming and supplying jihadists so...

At any rate you lot seem to be so used to fending off attacks from Trumpites on this topic, that you think I'm personally going after Clinton in some moral emotional way. In this case all I'm saying is judging from her words and deeds she will be an interventionist hawkish president on foreign policy.

her past policies are certainly worth reading up on. I would recommend you use google news instead of anyone's biased analysis.

I have no idea why you think trump is somehow NOT hawkish when he has vowed to bomb the hell out of isis.

[Hittanryan]

Many of the interventions cited in your articles followed years if not decades of internal turmoil following the collapse of central authority (usually ruthlessly authoritarian) with the arrival of armies directed by previous administrations. Whether or not following up on the messes created by previous administrations is debatable, but I think it's unfair to put the blame for those messes squarely on Hillary when she didn't start it in the first place.

Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes. Inherited chaos from Bush's adventures, both of which however were backed by Clinton. Libya and Syria, nope, all product of the Obama and Clinton administration. I mean you could argue that they've learned from previous debacles by refusing to deploy ground troops. But then again they're actively undermining established states by effectively arming and supplying jihadists so...

At any rate you lot seem to be so used to fending off attacks from Trumpites on this topic, that you think I'm personally going after Clinton in some moral emotional way. In this case all I'm saying is judging from her words and deeds she will be an interventionist hawkish president on foreign policy.

Neither the Syrian nor Libyan civil wars were started by Clinton. They grew out of the Arab Spring.

[Dahon]

At any rate you lot seem to be so used to fending off attacks from Trumpites on this topic, that you think I'm personally going after Clinton in some moral emotional way. In this case all I'm saying is judging from her words and deeds she will be an interventionist hawkish president on foreign policy.

Not me -- I usually stay away from such things as Clinton's record as Secretary of State -- after all, I'm not American myself (of course -- you're not one yourself or so you've said, so let's say I'm not as engaged in Clinton the stateswoman as in Clinton the not-Trump).

[Khadgar]

Many of the interventions cited in your articles followed years if not decades of internal turmoil following the collapse of central authority (usually ruthlessly authoritarian) with the arrival of armies directed by previous administrations. Whether or not following up on the messes created by previous administrations is debatable, but I think it's unfair to put the blame for those messes squarely on Hillary when she didn't start it in the first place.

Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes. Inherited chaos from Bush's adventures, both of which however were backed by Clinton. Libya and Syria, nope, all product of the Obama and Clinton administration. I mean you could argue that they've learned from previous debacles by refusing to deploy ground troops. But then again they're actively undermining established states by effectively arming and supplying jihadists so...

At any rate you lot seem to be so used to fending off attacks from Trumpites on this topic, that you think I'm personally going after Clinton in some moral emotional way. In this case all I'm saying is judging from her words and deeds she will be an interventionist hawkish president on foreign policy.

70% of Americans backed the Iraq war. I'm not actually sure how many supported the Afghan war but it was certainly a majority in New York. I'm not sure why you think Clinton is the sole source of all evil in the world because she did exactly what most Americans wanted. Syria and Libya were civil wars. How they're the fault of anyone west of the Atlantic ocean is something I'd love to see you explain.

[Bakery Hill]

Just quickly? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and more subtle, but no less damaging interventions throughout Latin America such as in Honduras in 2009.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/27/hil ... raq-syria/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magaz ... -hawk.html

Those sources don't really support your claim. The Foreign Policy article lists a number of interventions that Clinton in fact opposed.

I know. I read it. My intention here isn't to slander Clinton like some Trump hack, it's to better illuminate her foreign policy. Which is unashamedly interventionist, and that the products of this as Sec of State have been dodgy to be kind. I went in my original comment to Dushan to predict that this might lead to a very bloody future if current trends continue.

She has disavowed her initial support for the Iraq War, calling it a mistake.

Yeah so does everyone else haha. Has she learned? Maybe.

It was the Bush Administration who badly mishandled the war in Afghanistan, allowing the Taliban to recover and forcing the Obama Administration to respond. She disagreed with drone strikes in Pakistan, and as Secretary of State had no authority over the CIA's drone program.

Now the Taliban have recovered again, they even took the city of Kunduz for a while. Is that the Obama Administration's fault? Re drone strikes the article does cite her initial disapproval of them, but that she then went to embrace them as Sec of State.

Killing Osama bin Laden was the right call.

Yeah no tears from me there.

Syria was not an invasion but a botched effort at covertly supplying armed groups.

No it wasn't an invasion. That's not really the point though.

The only actual major military deployment she supported as Secretary was in Libya, which was not a unilateral US effort.

France and Britain came along so somehow it doesn't count?

Compare that to Trump's claim we need to send 20-30,000 troops to Syria and seize Iraqi oil resources. Compare that to Trump repeatedly asking why we have nukes if we're not going to use them.

Hahaha fuck sake I know. I've been very up front with how fucking scarily stupid I think Trump is. In critiquing Clinton's foreign policy, I don't have to advocate Trump?

[Ifreann]

Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes. Inherited chaos from Bush's adventures, both of which however were backed by Clinton. Libya and Syria, nope, all product of the Obama and Clinton administration. I mean you could argue that they've learned from previous debacles by refusing to deploy ground troops. But then again they're actively undermining established states by effectively arming and supplying jihadists so...

At any rate you lot seem to be so used to fending off attacks from Trumpites on this topic, that you think I'm personally going after Clinton in some moral emotional way. In this case all I'm saying is judging from her words and deeds she will be an interventionist hawkish president on foreign policy.

her past policies are certainly worth reading up on. I would recommend you use google news instead of anyone's biased analysis.

I have no idea why you think trump is somehow NOT hawkish when he has vowed to bomb the hell out of isis.

Presumably people think that Trump not wanting to defend America's allies from Russia or North Korea cancels out the fact that he wants to glass the entire Levant.

[Bakery Hill]

This is a ridiculous question. The US rarely openly starts wars. It "intervenes". Aggressive military intervention in local conflicts, in the interest of maintaining a US lead liberal order, is something Clinton has done unashamedly. It's a part of her self conscious world view as a disciple of Kissinger. She says as much herself.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 22de46ac7c

That's not what I asked. I asked specifically "What large-scale wars did Clinton start during her tenure as Secretary of State? What wars has she advocated starting? Do any of them compare to what Trump said?"

That you did. Part of my broader premise, from before you asked that, is that you don't have to unilaterally start wars to have a damagingly interventionist foreign policy. But apologies if my reply didn't specifically conform with your question.

[Bakery Hill]

Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes. Inherited chaos from Bush's adventures, both of which however were backed by Clinton. Libya and Syria, nope, all product of the Obama and Clinton administration. I mean you could argue that they've learned from previous debacles by refusing to deploy ground troops. But then again they're actively undermining established states by effectively arming and supplying jihadists so...

At any rate you lot seem to be so used to fending off attacks from Trumpites on this topic, that you think I'm personally going after Clinton in some moral emotional way. In this case all I'm saying is judging from her words and deeds she will be an interventionist hawkish president on foreign policy.

her past policies are certainly worth reading up on. I would recommend you use google news instead of anyone's biased analysis.

I have no idea why you think trump is somehow NOT hawkish when he has vowed to bomb the hell out of isis.

.....

.....

D:

[Ashmoria]

Those sources don't really support your claim. The Foreign Policy article lists a number of interventions that Clinton in fact opposed.

I know. I read it. My intention here isn't to slander Clinton like some Trump hack, it's to better illuminate her foreign policy. Which is unashamedly interventionist, and that the products of this as Sec of State have been dodgy to be kind. I went in my original comment to Dushan to predict that this might lead to a very bloody future if current trends continue.

She has disavowed her initial support for the Iraq War, calling it a mistake.

Yeah so does everyone else haha. Has she learned? Maybe.

It was the Bush Administration who badly mishandled the war in Afghanistan, allowing the Taliban to recover and forcing the Obama Administration to respond. She disagreed with drone strikes in Pakistan, and as Secretary of State had no authority over the CIA's drone program.

Now the Taliban have recovered again, they even took the city of Kunduz for a while. Is that the Obama Administration's fault? Re drone strikes the article does cite her initial disapproval of them, but that she then went to embrace them as Sec of State.

Killing Osama bin Laden was the right call.

Yeah no tears from me there.

Syria was not an invasion but a botched effort at covertly supplying armed groups.

No it wasn't an invasion. That's not really the point though.

The only actual major military deployment she supported as Secretary was in Libya, which was not a unilateral US effort.

France and Britain came along so somehow it doesn't count?

Compare that to Trump's claim we need to send 20-30,000 troops to Syria and seize Iraqi oil resources. Compare that to Trump repeatedly asking why we have nukes if we're not going to use them.

Hahaha fuck sake I know. I've been very up front with how fucking scarily stupid I think Trump is. In critiquing Clinton's foreign policy, I don't have to advocate Trump?

it might help if you gave us an idea of your position on war and intervention.

seems to me that Clinton is right there in with the rest of American leaders and policy makers. if you are a radical non-interventionist you hate all of them. we are certainly more bellicose than *I* would like but I have come to accept that it is our role in the world and that its not going to change.

[Bakery Hill]

Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes. Inherited chaos from Bush's adventures, both of which however were backed by Clinton. Libya and Syria, nope, all product of the Obama and Clinton administration. I mean you could argue that they've learned from previous debacles by refusing to deploy ground troops. But then again they're actively undermining established states by effectively arming and supplying jihadists so...

At any rate you lot seem to be so used to fending off attacks from Trumpites on this topic, that you think I'm personally going after Clinton in some moral emotional way. In this case all I'm saying is judging from her words and deeds she will be an interventionist hawkish president on foreign policy.

70% of Americans backed the Iraq war. I'm not actually sure how many supported the Afghan war but it was certainly a majority in New York. I'm not sure why you think Clinton is the sole source of all evil in the world because she did exactly what most Americans wanted. Syria and Libya were civil wars. How they're the fault of anyone west of the Atlantic ocean is something I'd love to see you explain.

Oh for fuck's sake liberals are just great hahaha

[Bakery Hill]

I know. I read it. My intention here isn't to slander Clinton like some Trump hack, it's to better illuminate her foreign policy. Which is unashamedly interventionist, and that the products of this as Sec of State have been dodgy to be kind. I went in my original comment to Dushan to predict that this might lead to a very bloody future if current trends continue.


Yeah so does everyone else haha. Has she learned? Maybe.


Now the Taliban have recovered again, they even took the city of Kunduz for a while. Is that the Obama Administration's fault? Re drone strikes the article does cite her initial disapproval of them, but that she then went to embrace them as Sec of State.


Yeah no tears from me there.


No it wasn't an invasion. That's not really the point though.


France and Britain came along so somehow it doesn't count?


Hahaha fuck sake I know. I've been very up front with how fucking scarily stupid I think Trump is. In critiquing Clinton's foreign policy, I don't have to advocate Trump?

it might help if you gave us an idea of your position on war and intervention.

seems to me that Clinton is right there in with the rest of American leaders and policy makers. if you are a radical non-interventionist you hate all of them. we are certainly more bellicose than *I* would like but I have come to accept that it is our role in the world and that its not going to change.

It's hard to say. My position is that US hegemony is bad for the world, but the rise of a multi-polar world will be violent and bloody. Not that it really matters what I or anyone on this board thinks. I'm talking about what's likely to happen when Clinton gets elected, given the state of the world and her foreign policy principles. It doesn't look crash hot to me.

[Ashmoria]

her past policies are certainly worth reading up on. I would recommend you use google news instead of anyone's biased analysis.

I have no idea why you think trump is somehow NOT hawkish when he has vowed to bomb the hell out of isis.

Presumably people think that Trump not wanting to defend America's allies from Russia or North Korea cancels out the fact that he wants to glass the entire Levant.

ahhh I hadn't considered that.

[Ashmoria]

it might help if you gave us an idea of your position on war and intervention.

seems to me that Clinton is right there in with the rest of American leaders and policy makers. if you are a radical non-interventionist you hate all of them. we are certainly more bellicose than *I* would like but I have come to accept that it is our role in the world and that its not going to change.

It's hard to say. My position is that US hegemony is bad for the world, but the rise of a multi-polar world will be violent and bloody. Not that it really matters what I or anyone on this board thinks. I'm talking about what's likely to happen when Clinton gets elected, given the state of the world and her foreign policy principles. It doesn't look crash hot to me.

if you don't like what the US usually does in international situations then you wont like what Clinton does in international situations. she wont be far off what Obama has done but she probably isn't the war fan that bush2 was.

[Hurdergaryp]

Presumably people think that Trump not wanting to defend America's allies from Russia or North Korea cancels out the fact that he wants to glass the entire Levant.

ahhh I hadn't considered that.

Not many people seriously consider the nuclear sterilization of the Middle East, if only because of all that fallout.

[Ashmoria]

ahhh I hadn't considered that.

Not many people seriously consider the nuclear sterilization of the Middle East, if only because of all that fallout.

it is hard to imagine nuking isis and not affecting Israel, Saudi arabia or turkey. (just going with our most important friends in the region)