US Presidential Election XII

[Caleb8844]

The shockingly brutal Saudi air campaign in Yemen has been led by American-made F-15 jet fighters.
The indiscriminate bombing of civilians and rescuers from the air has prompted human rights organizations to claim that some Saudi-led strikes on Yemen may amount to war crimes. At least 2,800 civilians have been killed in the conflict so far, according to the United Nations — mostly by airstrikes. The strikes have killed journalists and ambulance drivers.
The planes, made by Boeing, have been implicated in the bombing of three facilities supported by Doctors Without Borders (Médicins Sans Frontières). The U.N. Secretary General has decried “intense airstrikes in residential areas and on civilian buildings in Sanaa, including the chamber of commerce, a wedding hall, and a center for the blind,” and has warned that reports of cluster bombs being used in populated areas “may amount to a war crime due to their indiscriminate nature.”

A few years earlier, as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton made weapons transfer to the Saudi government a “top priority,” according to her closest military aide.

And now, newly released emails show that her aides kept her well-informed of the approval process for a $29.4 billion sale in 2011 of up to 84 advanced F-15SA fighters, manufactured by Boeing, along with upgrades to the pre-existing Saudi fleet of 70 F-15 aircraft and munitions, spare parts, training, maintenance, and logistics.

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/22/...stmas-present/

Saudi Arabia has been a particularly generous benefactor. The kingdom gave between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation. (Donations are typically reported in broad ranges, not specific amounts.) At least $1 million more was donated by Friends of Saudi Arabia, which was co-founded by a Saudi prince.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us...rity.html?_r=0

I don't accept that people don't understand the difference between setting up meetings for donors and approving arms deals for foreign countries who have donated millions to the foundation we're now accepting is just a pay-to-play passthrough -- arms that are currently being used to commit war crimes on innocent citizens of the poorest country in one of the poorest areas of the world.

But hey, can we trust a right wing conspiracy theorist like Glenn Greenwald?

[trojanchick99]

Originally Posted by womanfish

That is one strange poll. 538 just did a piece about it this morning. Somehow it polls about 6 points in Trumps favor at all times...

It is odd. I heard an interview with one of the USC profs behind it and he mentioned the important thing in regards to this poll is the trend. They interview the same people over and over.

Of course Nate Silver is able to explain that better than just about anyone. That was a great article.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/22/...stmas-present/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us...rity.html?_r=0

I don't accept that people don't understand the difference between setting up meetings for donors and approving arms deals for foreign countries who have donated millions to the foundation we're now accepting is just a pay-to-play passthrough -- arms that are currently being used to commit war crimes on innocent citizens of the poorest country in one of the poorest areas of the world.

But hey, can we trust a right wing conspiracy theorist like Glenn Greenwald?

Genuine questions:

Haven't we been dealing arms to SA for decades? Why does this one seem to be tied to donations?

Also, Congress knew of this sale, so once again, why is it tied to donations and just Clinton?

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us...rity.html?_r=0

Wouldn't we want a Secretary of State to be well informed about the sale of military equipment to foreign countries?

I don't accept that people don't understand the difference between setting up meetings for donors and approving arms deals for foreign countries who have donated millions to the foundation we're now accepting is just a pay-to-play passthrough -- arms that are currently being used to commit war crimes on innocent citizens of the poorest country in one of the poorest areas of the world.

Saudi Arabia has been purchasing arms and military equipment from the United States since well before the first Gulf War. It is quite a leap to make the claim that these arms deals were only approved because of donations to the Clinton Foundation while ignoring a long history of US-Saudi cooperation and aid.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings...foundation/478


What assholes

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Wouldn't we want a Secretary of State to be well informed about the sale of military equipment to foreign countries?



Saudi Arabia has been purchasing arms and military equipment from the United States since well before the first Gulf War. It is quite a leap to make the claim that these arms deals were only approved because of donations to the Clinton Foundation while ignoring a long history of US-Saudi cooperation and aid.

I don't like that she gets financial contributions from them, though. I don't know, I really wouldn't want anyone running for office here getting contributions from any countries.

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by BVS

Genuine questions:

Haven't we been dealing arms to SA for decades? Why does this one seem to be tied to donations?

Also, Congress knew of this sale, so once again, why is it tied to donations and just Clinton?

These are legitimate questions that are worth discussing.

Regarding why this one seems tied to donations, even though we've been doing arms deals with SA for decades:

Clinton not only rubber-stamped major weapon deals with 20 countries that donated to her and her husband’s philanthropic arm, the Clinton Foundation, but also approved nearly double the amount of arms sales to those same 20 countries as the State Department of George W. Bush’s second term.

Hillary Clinton Is Pro Gun Control, But She's Also Big on Arms Deals

Keep in mind that, while she's approved nearly twice as many arms deals to these countries as were approved under Bush, many people brought up concerns about the Bush family's relationship to Saudi Arabia, as well.

Regarding the question about whether congress is equally implicated: their hands certainly aren't entirely clean, but they don't have the same ability to exercise control over arms deals that the Secretary of State has.

In general, the executive branch, after complying with the terms of applicable U.S. law, principally contained in the AECA, is free to proceed with an arms sales proposal unless Congress passes legislation prohibiting or modifying the proposed sale. Under current law Congress must overcome two fundamental obstacles to block or modify a Presidential sale of military equipment:


- it must pass legislation expressing its will on the sale,
- and it must be capable of overriding a presumptive Presidential veto of such legislation.

Arms Sales: Congressional Review Process | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency

So, while congress technically could override an arms deal, they would likely have to be able to override a presidential veto (since Obama would likely use one -- Clinton was part of his administration, after all), which they never really had the numbers to reliably do.

These are both questions worth talking about. Clinton may be the politician we finally nailed for having corrupt ties to Saudi Arabia, but Lord knows she's nowhere near alone.

[BEAL]

There is nothing to really see here.

You can be upset that we give weapons to a country who's been responsible for a good deal of terror in that region and back here.

Hell, most of the hijackers of 9/11 were Saudis. Did we sever any ties to them after the fact? The Saudis fund ISIS, as the group's belief system fits in line with those in power within the government.

All of this existed before Clinton, and will exist going forward until we aren't so dependent on oil and their land/sea access.

I would love nothing more than for us to cut ties with that country. Unfortunately it's not so black/white. The economy, the unstable region, and many other factors go into it.

There just isn't any proof of wrongdoing by the Clinton Foundation.

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Wouldn't we want a Secretary of State to be well informed about the sale of military equipment to foreign countries?



Saudi Arabia has been purchasing arms and military equipment from the United States since well before the first Gulf War. It is quite a leap to make the claim that these arms deals were only approved because of donations to the Clinton Foundation while ignoring a long history of US-Saudi cooperation and aid.

As I addressed in my post above, I concede the point that she didn't author the Saudi/US relationship. However, it's not as though she continued business as usual: arms deals to countries like Saudi were nearly doubled under her and Obama's administration in comparison to Bush's -- an administration that has long been criticized for having suspicious relations with the Saudi royal family.

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings...foundation/478


What assholes

An overhead of 12% is almost unheard of for charities. One of the most effective charities in the world. It must be stopped!!!!

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

These are legitimate questions that are worth discussing.

Regarding why this one seems tied to donations, even though we've been doing arms deals with SA for decades:

Wouldn't it make sense that people she does business and meets with on a regular basis will probably end up on her donor list? That's kinda how celebrity charities end up working.

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

So, while congress technically could override an arms deal, they would likely have to be able to override a presidential veto (since Obama would likely use one -- Clinton was part of his administration, after all), which they never really had the numbers to reliably do.

Think about who you're talking about... There are members of Congress who have said 'No' for 8 years just to do so. If this was really any concern to any one of them we would have heard so, no matter how symbolic.

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by bono_212

I don't like that she gets financial contributions from them, though. I don't know, I really wouldn't want anyone running for office here getting contributions from any countries.

SHE doesn't get contributions from them. It's a charity, in which she no longer is an active member, and where she receives ZERO compensation. And as of yet, no one can point to one thing that shows any impropriety happened because of donations that were given to the foundation.

[namkcuR]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Oh good, here comes to "reasonable Democrat" media ripping apart that legitimate AP story about the Clinton Foundation. Fuck Matt Yglesias.

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.

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by BEAL

There is nothing to really see here.

of course there is, because oregoropa said there is. any disagreement puts you on princeps clinton's praetorian guard (damn that's a hell of a fast promotion, i'll take it). you're just so scared of the trump train about to run you over that you're like a deer in the headlights.

maga, bitches.

[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.

[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.