US Presidential Election XII

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

Yeah? Go ahead and give some examples. I'd love to hear them. Because when people like PFan and Vlad have brought up concerns about her foreign policy record, for example, it's immediately crickets. Then there's something about Bernie's tax records, and right on cue, pages of mockery.

Speaking for myself, I fully agree that Hilary's foreign policy history is worthy of discussion. I'm not exactly thrilled that she supported the Iraq War, either, especially knowing what we know now about just how fabricated the reasons for bringing us there were.

However, I also feel that even if Hilary hadn't voted for the Iraq War, there's a chance she'd still get us into some other sort of foreign conflict as president. Just like Obama and his thing with the drone program and the smaller scale battles. Our involvement in foreign conflicts is often very much a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Politicians can stand there and talk all they want about how they'll pull us out of here or send us over there, but it's one thing to say that on the campaign trail, it's another entirely to have to actually wind up making those kinds of tough decisions when in office.

Mind, I think it's very frustrating that Democrats are so afraid of looking "soft on terror/national security" to the point where they support things like the Iraq War years back or other conflicts of that sort, but I think they need to know they have the support of constituents when they stand and refuse to send us into x conflict (or at least, not go until we have all the legit information we absolutely need to make such calls). Maybe if they have that, they'll listen to those people instead of the ones who are all, "Let's just go in and bomb everyone!"

As for other criticisms, well, I also remember cringing during the primaries when Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright came out at a rally for Hilary and basically said that women need to stick together and support Hilary. Hilary herself didn't say such things, no (thankfully), but it was kind of an off-putting message to put out in her campaign. Sarah Palin and Carly Fiorina are women, too, after all, and there's no way in hell I'd support them on anything. Hilary's experience and ability to handle the job can speak for itself, so it's best when she just keeps the focus on that.

And I think most here also acknowledged at various points that Clinton goofed up with the e-mail scandal. We may not be making it into the WORST. SCANDAL. EVAR! that the right and others have been trying to turn it into, but still...

So there's a few examples of critique of Clinton that I can give right off the bat.

I can't speak for the others on their thoughts on discussions regarding Bernie, but I've mentioned before that I was cool with him, too. I would've supported him if he won the nomination, no question.

Originally Posted by martha

I didn't read these threads during the primaries, but part of my problem is the hatred spewed by the Bernie-ites towards Hillary. My FB was insane; it was like she was the Anti-Christ or something.

Same here. I did run into some of that online, too, and that part of it all got very tiring. But that's not Bernie's fault, obviously, that's just a few people being obnoxious online, which...is really nothing new .

[Debra S]

Originally Posted by BVS

This is a pretty well known stance, I'm surprised you're not aware.

Donald Trump Doesn’t Understand the Value of U.S. Bases Overseas | Foreign Policy

U.S. Foreign Military Support

The Many Ways Trump Has Turned the U.S. Foreign-Policy Consensus Upside Down - The Atlantic

Former NATO chief: Donald Trump is a global risk – POLITICO

Ok, but he never really says "I want to close all bases," he is just saying that we should be repaid for supporting other countries militarily. It's a small point, but the way he is framing the question, it leaves it open to negotiating with other countries to find a new way to support them, in a way that is fair to the US. He is not giving the blanket statement that Stein is saying.

[DaveC]

the vast majority of overseas US military bases are on land that was conquered and/or occupied (the philippines, guantanamo bay, germany, okinawa). the americans didn't set up shop there as a favour to the locals. what exactly about these situations is not "fair to the US"?

[Debra S]

As one of the articles mentioned, we are paying into NATO (and I suppose that includes military bases) and station in Japan, whereas they are not putting their own resources in for the help we are providing for their defense.

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by Debra S

As one of the articles mentioned, we are paying into NATO (and I suppose that includes military bases) and station in Japan, whereas they are not putting their own resources in for the help we are providing for their defense.

...

i'm going to assume you're aware of a little incident called world war 2?

japan is legally prohibited by their constitution (which was written by the victors) from having an independent military. so what exactly are they supposed to do? i'm no diplomat, but i don't think forcing your allies to rip up their constitutions for your sole benefit is smart foreign policy.

edit: this line of thinking also drastically and criminally undervalues the enormous support the us military receives from its nato allies, especially in overseas host countries. you and trump really have no idea what you're on about here.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Debra S

Ok, but he never really says "I want to close all bases," he is just saying that we should be repaid for supporting other countries militarily. It's a small point, but the way he is framing the question, it leaves it open to negotiating with other countries to find a new way to support them, in a way that is fair to the US. He is not giving the blanket statement that Stein is saying.

And as most of these articles point out this shows you and Trump don't understand the situation.

Either you believe in having a presence around the world in order to secure ourselves or you don't. It doesn't come down to getting paid(or the lack of understanding of our payment). His stance is juvenile.

You CLAIM to have voted for Sanders who wants to scale back our presence. You now support someone who will do so if they don't stroke his ego. So how is it an issue when Stein says so?

Can you see how you may come off contradictory?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Debra S

As one of the articles mentioned, we are paying into NATO (and I suppose that includes military bases) and station in Japan, whereas they are not putting their own resources in for the help we are providing for their defense.

I'm curious. Were you even aware of this "problem" where the United States supposedly isn't receiving compensation for their defense of other nations? Or did the Donald say it, and now you're just defending it?

It seems to me that people are quick to defend the claims of the talking head. That goes both ways of course, but typically people can get away with ignorance when the talking head they're backing doesn't just make wildly irrational claims such as this one. I don't know how you or anyone else can't see this, or if you just don't want to, but Trump clearly made up this strange claim that somehow Japan or any other country with US military presence is getting some kind of freebie.

[Vlad n U 2]

I can't believe Sting made a comeback.

[BigMacPhisto]

What are everyone else's thoughts on the bases? I'm down with closing all of them and getting out of all foreign war involvement, but that's just me...

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

What are everyone else's thoughts on the bases? I'm down with closing all of them and getting out of all foreign war involvement, but that's just me...

You don't have to necessarily close down bases to not be involved with other countries' wars and affairs.

We live in a globalized world. Including the military reach of other countries, good or bad. I believe in non-interventionist government, whenever possible. But, and here I'll go sounding like I'm copying the talking head that is Gary Johnson, there's a difference between interventionism and being involved on the global stage. If you're not involved globally, you're falling behind in all spheres. Militarily. Influentially. Economically. We must participate, but that's different from going and fucking shit up.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

You don't have to necessarily close down bases to not be involved with other countries' wars and affairs.

We live in a globalized world. Including the military reach of other countries, good or bad. I believe in non-interventionist government, whenever possible. But, and here I'll go sounding like I'm copying the talking head that is Gary Johnson, there's a difference between interventionism and being involved on the global stage. If you're not involved globally, you're falling behind in all spheres. Militarily. Influentially. Economically. We must participate, but that's different from going and fucking shit up.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

You don't have to necessarily close down bases to not be involved with other countries' wars and affairs.

We live in a globalized world. Including the military reach of other countries, good or bad. I believe in non-interventionist government, whenever possible. But, and here I'll go sounding like I'm copying the talking head that is Gary Johnson, there's a difference between interventionism and being involved on the global stage. If you're not involved globally, you're falling behind in all spheres. Militarily. Influentially. Economically. We must participate, but that's different from going and fucking shit up.

This


I mean to think we can just pack up and leave is idiotic.

To think we need to send them a bill is yuuuuuuugely idiotic.

Are there bases that need to be reaccessed? Sure.

But isolationism is no longer an option in this world.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Axver]

Originally Posted by womanfish

Totally agree. I called this back when Carson was up in the polls during the primaries. I said neither Carson or Trump, WANT to be president. Carson, to his credit, had a small enough ego to find a way out. Trump can't stop himself. He wants to win, no question. There just is no way he wants to be president. Or actually do the duties of the president.

He would simply seek to be a figurehead and outsource all the actual work. His ideal seems to be more in line with figurehead presidents of parliamentary republics in Europe, where the head of government has much greater authority and responsibility. Not that he would be suited to any sort of elected office, and it's increasingly obvious he's not even really suited to business. The man is a fucking clown who has got where he is by being one of the single most detestable people to carve out a public profile without murdering anybody (yet).

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

Yeah? Go ahead and give some examples. I'd love to hear them. Because when people like PFan and Vlad have brought up concerns about her foreign policy record, for example, it's immediately crickets. Then there's something about Bernie's tax records, and right on cue, pages of mockery.

It surprises me to read this, because my feeling is that it's almost impossible to post favourably about Clinton without some sort of qualifier - that you are uncomfortable with some of her foreign policy (I've said this often), that you are closer ideologically to Sanders but don't believe he could win (again, I've said this), etc. I hated when this thread became a Sanders vs Clinton shitfest because obviously the priority is making sure an absolute madman does not become president of one of the most powerful countries in the world. A Trump victory is the sort of thing from a nightmare. I'd have expected people to be able to put aside their differences to stop the common threat, like how in France people on the left and centre-right banded together to stop Marine Le Pen.

I also note that Bernie fans got very quiet on the topic of his poor stance on gun control, or passed it off as political expediency for a Vermont rep - the sort of political expediency argument they never ever accepted as valid justification for anything Clinton did.

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by Axver

I also note that Bernie fans got very quiet on the topic of his poor stance on gun control, or passed it off as political expediency for a Vermont rep - the sort of political expediency argument they never ever accepted as valid justification for anything Clinton did.

The tendency that emerged while Bernie was in his dwindling days seems to me to have been dismissing all criticisms of one's preferred candidate and accepting all criticisms of the opposition. In terms of Hillary, I absolutely see how her supporters would tire of the endless shit flung her way, and indeed a good deal of that shit is completely fabricated.

But my fear is the pendulum has swung the other way in that there is an almost reflexive response to brush aside concerns about her when we on "the left" should be having a serious discussion about what she represents for the future of the country. Because right now it's easy to see her as a necessity against Trump, but when she inevitably wins this election, we will have to live with her policies and decisions. "She's better than Trump" will no longer have any relevance.

[Kieran McConville]

Indeed, if it turns out that she's (not to overly personalise; frankly insert any 2016 Democratic president-elect here) better than Trump, and no better than that, there will be another Trump in four years. Maybe the next one won't be an incompetent.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

The tendency that emerged while Bernie was in his dwindling days seems to me to have been dismissing all criticisms of one's preferred candidate and accepting all criticisms of the opposition. In terms of Hillary, I absolutely see how her supporters would tire of the endless shit flung her way, and indeed a good deal of that shit is completely fabricated.

But my fear is the pendulum has swung the other way in that there is an almost reflexive response to brush aside concerns about her when we on "the left" should be having a serious discussion about what she represents for the future of the country. Because right now it's easy to see her as a necessity against Trump, but when she inevitably wins this election, we will have to live with her policies and decisions. "She's better than Trump" will no longer have any relevance.

What policies do you think she will advance that would concern you? Or is it more that she won't pursue the kinds of deeper Leftist policies that a President Sanders might have pursued?

Let's even imagine the Democrats win back the Senate and she has an easier time with legislation.

[BEAL]

I think Wall Street is the biggest concern with her. Even with a majority in the house and senate would legislation pass to reel them in a bit?

Most think it would go the other way.

Of course I'm not sure what Bernie would do.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by BEAL

I think Wall Street is the biggest concern with her. Even with a majority in the house and senate would legislation pass to reel them in a bit?

Most think it would go the other way.

Of course I'm not sure what Bernie would do.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

To counter, how then does anyone believe that Sanders would be successful in passing his far left policies that he ran on?

Any policy Sanders put forth would instantly get zero votes from the right. With a moderate, or at least somebody who seems willing to compromise on their ideals, you're able to continue the progress of pushing the middle further to the left, which should be the ultimate goal.

Shoving far left policies down the country's throat will alienate the middle and galvanize the right.

Obama got this. And as much as many on the far left see his presidency as a blown opportunity to advance the progressive agenda... look at all the progress we've made in 8 years?

I don't see the anger from Trump shpporters, which is real, as a sign that we're more divided as a country than ever... I see it as a sign that the pushing of the can further down the left side of the road is working, and the last hold outs are getting desperate because they see what they believe to be "their country" slipping away.

And they're right. It is slipping away from the old guard. And that's a good thing. But it's still fragile, and can swing back the other direction if the left is stupid. If they're smart, then George W Bush's proclamation that he might be the last Republican president ever just might come true.

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Or is it more that she won't pursue the kinds of deeper Leftist policies that a President Sanders might have pursued?

This is it, basically. If we have two terms of Clinton and a term of Kaine, or someone similar to Kaine, then we end up with a Centrist party in the Democrats and a far Right opposition in the Republicans, with essentially no viable Left.

More specifically, I think something more dramatic needs to be done about financial inequality, which is the fount of most social tensions as well IMO. The old Democratic "tax the rich and close loopholes" mentality doesn't really work, because the people such policies target simply disguise their money, move it elsewhere, find still other loopholes, etc. Under Clinton the mammoth budgetary allotment to the military will likely continue as well.

And I get that Bernie was more rhetoric than hard policy on wealth disparity, but I do think he would have made it a high priority as president.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

This is it, basically. If we have two terms of Clinton and a term of Kaine, or someone similar to Kaine, then we end up with a Centrist party in the Democrats and a far Right opposition in the Republicans, with essentially no viable Left.

More specifically, I think something more dramatic needs to be done about financial inequality, which is the fount of most social tensions as well IMO. The old Democratic "tax the rich and close loopholes" mentality doesn't really work, because the people such policies target simply disguise their money, move it elsewhere, find still other loopholes, etc. Under Clinton the mammoth budgetary allotment to the military will likely continue as well.

And I get that Bernie was more rhetoric than hard policy on wealth disparity, but I do think he would have made it a high priority as president.

I really don't understand this fear, and unless Kaine does something outstanding, I don't see him taking it. I predict that both parties will make a fairly drastic facelift in the next 8 years.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference