US Presidential Election XII

[BVS]

There are far too many facts in here. You people and your facts.

Facts, science, the pope, and snopes are all part of the liberal agenda.

It's about what you feel. I feel like there's a scandal here, I feel like you all are going to be crying in your gluten free wheatgrass lattes come November.

Trump will end violent crime in a week. He's going to start in Chicago and take it all the way to ISIS. The man will win so hard and so fast, he really won't have anything to do the next three years of his term.

Let's make America feel the win again.

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by namkcuR

As for the NYT article the other day about her foreign policy positions and outlook throughout her life and particularly as a Senator and the Secretary Of State, I thought it was a good article that gave a lot of context and added depth to foreign policy positions and philosophies we already knew she held.

Yeah, ultimately I thought it was more complimentary than anything else, as it shows she makes a very thorough effort to understand the tactics she supports and their potential ramifications.

[BEAL]

Originally Posted by namkcuR

As for the NYT article the other day about her foreign policy positions and outlook throughout her life and particularly as a Senator and the Secretary Of State, I thought it was a good article that gave a lot of context and added depth to foreign policy positions and philosophies we already knew she held. It is not news that she is more hawkish and more interventionist than many of the left would like. I have said before, that if given the choice, I'd prefer a third Obama term over Hillary, for several reasons, a major one being that I prefer his minimalist approach to military affairs, even with the moral questions the droning program raises. I have never shied away from the fact that I don't share her general philosophies in this area. Just because there are awful people doing horrific things in the world and we feel a moral obligation to do something about it because we're America, doesn't mean we should if we don't actually have a clear and effective way of removing the awful people(and replacing them with a stable system) and alleviating the horrific things.

All that said, for all the problems I have with her outlook on foreign affairs - of which there are plenty - I am still confident that she knows her shit and does her homework, that she knows what the fuck is going on in in any given foreign policy situation(or if she doesn't she makes it her business to seek out those who do and learn), which is more than I can say for her opponent. I may not agree with her, but I do feel a degree of confidence that the world won't blow up with her in office(like I said, I'd feel safer still with another Obama term). Furthermore, if she manages to accomplish even half the things on the DNC platform($15 minimum wage, tuition free stage college, gun control measures, public option, to name a few), it would be worth putting up with a more interventionist foreign policy than you would ideally want.

Also, to address BMP - just because we might disagree with her on these things, or because she might be wrong, does not mean she's 'bonkers'. That's silly.

And I know that Bernie people - of which I was one - like to point to her hawkish tendencies as a reason Bernie should've been the nominee, but the reality is that Bernie really didn't show much interest in being commander in chief when he was running, he only wanted to talk about domestic things. There's more to foreign policy than military intervention, and just because you're a pacifist doesn't mean you get to skip having a foreign policy. Hillary may be too hawkish, but I, despite voting for Bernie in the primary, was never convinced he'd be engaged or interested enough in the foreign policy side of the job to do it effectively, and it's one of the reasons my support for him weakened later on in the primary.

There wasn't a great foreign policy choice in the primary - it was either too interventionist or too disinterested. Like I said, I'd take a third Obama term over either.

Finally, when we read things like this, it is easy for those on the left to say, well, she doesn't seem much different, foreign policy wise, than a neo-con, she's just like Bush and Cheney and co. I would encourage anyone with that thought to dismiss it immediately. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were not just neo-cons, they weren't just interventionists, they weren't just hawkish - they were war criminals. They made shit up to justify an unnecessary war, they misled both the electorate and congress to do so, and as a result 4000 people died and who knows how many more came home physically wounded, mentally damaged, or both. So let those on the far left not fall into the trap of putting Hillary in the same camp.

You have written so much of my thoughts better than I ever could. Get out of my head!

Great point on Bernie and FP, because he really seemed to be out of his element here. Bernie really focused on a few domestic issues, and when pressed on FP his answers came off as disinterested or vague. Of course so did his specifics to domestic policies (Break up the banks, etc)

I would take Obama for a 3rd term in a heartbeat. He has acted with class, and showed he's operating at much higher intellectual level than anyone else in Washington. He has his faults too, and the drone program can be debated back and forth. But he has accomplished so much and against the most piece of shit congress in history.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by namkcuR

I assume you're referring to this:
The AP’s big exposé on Hillary meeting with Clinton Foundation donors is a mess - Vox

I don't know, I think it's a compelling rebuttal. I didn't read the AP story it's debunking, so maybe I missed something, but I haven't yet seen much there there.

He interprets the lack of complete information on Clinton's schedule as meaning there is no story here. Rather, it's a story in and of itself. The only access to schedules that the writers of the story had were those that came from a lawsuit, and even then those were hand picked by the State Department. Yglesias points out that they "couldn't come up with anything worse" than a few meetings that seem very positive for Clinton. Isn't that the whole point? That they picked and chose which ones were released to reflect positively on Clinton? It begs the question what else was on the schedule.

This isn't conspiratorial nonsense. Just because many of Clinton's critics, especially those on the right, are spewing nonsense about her constantly, does not mean that she is beyond criticism. There is typical politician stuff that every politician does. Clinton's issues go beyond that, while also falling short of the issues Trump has. Both things can be true.

Also, the 85 donors the AP cited donated $156 million. ONE HUNDRED FIFTY SIX MILLION. That is a fucking massive amount.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Also, the 85 donors the AP cited donated $156 million. ONE HUNDRED FIFTY SIX MILLION. That is a fucking massive amount.

I'm struggling to understand the indignation here. Yes, they donated ONE HUNDRED FIFTY SIX MILLION dollars. To a CHARITY. One that has done lots of good around the world.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by Diemen

I'm struggling to understand the idignation here. Yes, they donated ONE HUNDRED FIFTY SIX MILLION dollars. To a CHARITY. One that has done lots of good around the world.

And has some of the highest marks of any charity in the world from independent charity watchdogs.

88% of all money that comes in goes straight to their programs. That's an incredibly high percentage in the non profit, charity world.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Washington (CNN)Donald Trump gave more than $100,000 to the the Clinton Foundation, the organization the Republican nominee now calls "the most corrupt enterprise in political history."

lolz

[BVS]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

He interprets the lack of complete information on Clinton's schedule as meaning there is no story here. Rather, it's a story in and of itself. The only access to schedules that the writers of the story had were those that came from a lawsuit, and even then those were hand picked by the State Department. Yglesias points out that they "couldn't come up with anything worse" than a few meetings that seem very positive for Clinton. Isn't that the whole point? That they picked and chose which ones were released to reflect positively on Clinton? It begs the question what else was on the schedule.



This isn't conspiratorial nonsense. Just because many of Clinton's critics, especially those on the right, are spewing nonsense about her constantly, does not mean that she is beyond criticism. There is typical politician stuff that every politician does. Clinton's issues go beyond that, while also falling short of the issues Trump has. Both things can be true.



Also, the 85 donors the AP cited donated $156 million. ONE HUNDRED FIFTY SIX MILLION. That is a fucking massive amount.

So, just because there's not a story here now, doesn't mean there's not a story here somewhere?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[LuckyNumber7]

While Clinton having a massive charity that funnels tens of millions of dollars is certainly a topic of interest that should be looked at, I'm waiting for someone to point out something illegal or highly suspicious.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

While Clinton having a massive charity that funnels tens of millions of dollars is certainly a topic of interest that should be looked at,

Because of her position, or just charities in general?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Oregoropa]

Originally Posted by Diemen

I'm struggling to understand the indignation here. Yes, they donated ONE HUNDRED FIFTY SIX MILLION dollars. To a CHARITY. One that has done lots of good around the world.

Perhaps she should hold a press conference to reinforce this point

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by BVS

Because of her position, or just charities in general?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

My intention was just to say that a major presidential candidate should be scrutinized in all lights. So, because of her potential position.

It just so turns out that you've got to be equal. And the Clinton Foundation, with a null hypothesis of clean, is a positive for Clinton. I can't imagine the Donald's philanthropy extends beyond his tax breaks.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

While Clinton having a massive charity that funnels tens of millions of dollars is certainly a topic of interest that should be looked at,

Is it though? I mean, if they were less than forthcoming about financial information, sure, but that's clearly not the case here. We've got 30 years of the Clintons' tax returns, and they disclose all their Foundation's donors, amounts, and where the money goes.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

My intention was just to say that a major presidential candidate should be scrutinized in all lights. So, because of her potential position.

Fair enough


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

Perhaps she should hold a press conference to reinforce this point

What's the obsession with press conferences?

It's another fake controversy you're chasing. And a weird one at that...


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference