The New American Politics thread

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

How exactly does her foreign policy experience suck? Please feel free to provide specific examples of what makes her foreign policy experience worse than that of any other previous Presidential nominee, Secretary of State, Senator or First Lady.

Clinton's foreign policy has been a disaster no matter how you look at it. While Trump's policy might be widely incoherent it's really hard to see how Clinton's foreign policy "experience" is any better and less "pro war". Dick Cheney had plenty of foreign experience too. Like everything Clinton claims, lets take a deeper look at what her record actually is. As someone much smarter than me has pointed out, judgement is not the same as experience. Can anyone think of any decision she has made in the Middle East that has not ended in disaster for both the US or the country involved?

She has a long history as an advocate of the Kissinger doctrine of regime change. Clinton advocated and pushed for both the 2003 Iraq and 2011 Libya invasions. The 2011 invasion was recklessly pushed Gadhaffi's regime out with zero plan to deal with the aftermath. As Secretary of State worked to undermine Obama's position on the Libya by pushing, and getting, a non fly zone which we know now is a veiled euphemism for aerial invasion. She also worked against Obama in Iran, calling for Washington to level even more crippling sanctions on Iran, while mocking Obama for trying to create a dialogue. We now have a nuclear agreement in place.

In 2012, she pushed for a regime change in Syria without even knowing or understanding any of the consequences that might be involved. This is after already pushing getting Libya and Iraq. Creating the perfect power vacuum for ISIS.

She supported the coup in Honduras that put a military Junta in power in 2009 that supported American interests.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ras-and-haiti/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...honduras-coup/

She is so pro-war and pro-regime change you pretty much can project how she will act as CIC.

[troutman]

Trump could not find Libya on a map if you spotted him Tunisia, Algeria, Niger, Chad, Sudan and Egypt.

I doubt he could pass a high school exam on basic world history, geography and politics.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by troutman

Trump could not find Libya on a map if you spotted him Tunisia, Algeria, Niger, Chad, Sudan and Egypt.

I doubt he could pass a high school exam on basic world history, geography and politics.

True, but like others point out. He is now surrounded by GOP establishment figures in his campaign and whomever he appoints to a foreign policy position will probably come from that pool. Trump will be a puppet and a paper tiger and nothing more.

[GGG]

What evidence do we have that trump will defer to anyone for any reason?

Do we have any evidence of him listening to his lawyers in lawsuits or business advisors? Does he hire smart people and let them do their job or micromanage like a bad sports team owner?

This assumption that Trump will allow himself to be a puppet does not seem to be based on anything but hope.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

You may be right... but it's already slipped way down the page on major US and international news outlets - because no one in 'merica cares.
So why give it legs when it has none?

Because you should defend the leader of your party? Imagine Crosby getting slewfooted and sucker punched, and the Pens respond by...ignoring it. They simply don't like him, they'll use him because he's easy to use, but again they also won't help him very much. To a certain degree they're cool with losing with Trump since it means purging an element out they need gone anyway.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by GGG

What evidence do we have that trump will defer to anyone for any reason?

Do we have any evidence of him listening to his lawyers in lawsuits or business advisors? Does he hire smart people and let them do their job or micromanage like a bad sports team owner?

This assumption that Trump will allow himself to be a puppet does not seem to be based on anything but hope.

It is an assumption, but is it that much of a stretch to believe Trump never wants anything to do with sitting in policy meetings, or doing any of the other boring #### the President does? There's no ego stroking in that for him. He wants to be on TV all the time being Trump, not actually doing the political grunt work. I also expect he'd be the most absentee President ever, even more than W, so everyone else would be busy running things while he got even more orange.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

True, but like others point out. He is now surrounded by GOP establishment figures in his campaign and whomever he appoints to a foreign policy position will probably come from that pool. Trump will be a puppet and a paper tiger and nothing more.

Really.

You think Trump exhibits the humility and judgment to look at a problem, and undertake a process of self-examination of his own weakness in the area, come to the conclusion that he's not qualified to deal with it, and defer to someone else's view?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

True, but like others point out. He is now surrounded by GOP establishment figures in his campaign and whomever he appoints to a foreign policy position will probably come from that pool. Trump will be a puppet and a paper tiger and nothing more.

Realistically and fairly you could say the same thing about Hillary when it comes to things like the economy and domestic policy. She's so captured by the system that she basically works for wallstreet.

[nik-]

Two facts that exist at the same time (shockingly possible, I know)

1. Trump has zero foreign policy experience, and frankly comes across as an idiot when talking about it.

2. Clinton's foreign policy resume has lots of entries, but it's not very positive.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Because you should defend the leader of your party? Imagine Crosby getting slewfooted and sucker punched, and the Pens respond by...ignoring it. They simply don't like him, they'll use him because he's easy to use, but again they also won't help him very much. To a certain degree they're cool with losing with Trump since it means purging an element out they need gone anyway.

Have I have missed where the democrats have lined up and defended Hilary over all the stupid stuff that Trump constantly spits out about her?
That's the best thing about being Donald - when you reduce anything and everything said to the lowest form of stupidity, nobody listens to anything substantive - because the absurd is more interesting.

[Looch City]

Clinton can be (currently is) controlled by money and big companies.

Trump is a maniac that can (and probably will) do whatever the hell he wants, no matter the consequences.

Pick your poison?

Obama is basically the messiah compared to these two. 4 more years please?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Have I have missed where the democrats have lined up and defended Hilary over all the stupid stuff that Trump constantly spits out about her?
That's the best thing about being Donald - when you reduce anything and everything said to the lowest form of stupidity, nobody listens to anything substantive - because the absurd is more interesting.

Yes lol. Every Democrat alive has ripped Trump at some point in this campaign for his inane and childish remarks. The GOP has figured out they can load establishment people into his potential cabinet and thus can do whatever they want, but they utterly hate Trump as a person and if he flames out they can basically walk away and say "We only endorsed him because he was the people's choice, we never liked him".

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Obama is basically the messiah compared to these two. 4 more years please?

Obama is going to staunchly campaign for Hillary, since she'll continue most of his policies. What does that tell you about Obama "basically the messiah"? Mostly that he's just more likable than Hillary.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Really.

You think Trump exhibits the humility and judgment to look at a problem, and undertake a process of self-examination of his own weakness in the area, come to the conclusion that he's not qualified to deal with it, and defer to someone else's view?

As others have pointed out, Trump is a egotist and narcissist who has no interest in sitting in long policy meetings and hashing out what needs to be done and what not. He wants to appear big but does not have to do any of the work involved.

Since he's surrounded himself with GOP establishment figures as part of his campaign, it's likely he will have those same elements moving into a potential presidency. It's not too much of a stretch from there to see who will form actual policy decisions.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Clinton can be (currently is) controlled by money and big companies.

Trump is a maniac that can (and probably will) do whatever the hell he wants, no matter the consequences.

Pick your poison?

Obama is basically the messiah compared to these two. 4 more years please?

"Oh, is there a convention coming up?"

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Realistically and fairly you could say the same thing about Hillary when it comes to things like the economy and domestic policy. She's so captured by the system that she basically works for wallstreet.

Sadly her foreign policy has been captured by oil interest and military industrial companies.

Her speech to Exxon and other big oil companies highlights this praising the Iraq invasion and cleanup as a business opportunity. We know how that turned out.
http://www.ibtimes.com/campaign-2016...ations-2121999

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

It is an assumption, but is it that much of a stretch to believe Trump never wants anything to do with sitting in policy meetings, or doing any of the other boring #### the President does? There's no ego stroking in that for him. He wants to be on TV all the time being Trump, not actually doing the political grunt work. I also expect he'd be the most absentee President ever, even more than W, so everyone else would be busy running things while he got even more orange.

I believe he won't do any of the work but he will likely screw up the diplomatic work that is done by making a disparaging remark about a random dictators wife looking disgusting. Or launching nukes because Putin calls his hands small. I agree he will be an absentee president but I don't agree he wont intervene and ruin things because he feels insulted.

Id really be interested to hear how he run's his businesses in terms of interference.

[CaptainCrunch]

If he appoints his daughter as the VP I'm in, she's dreamy

I can imagine that his cabinet will be made up of his greasy haired kids and he'll run the presidency like the mafia.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If he appoints his daughter as the VP I'm in, she's dreamy

Never knew he had a daughter but their relationship seems really really creepy.

Spoiler!

“She does have a very nice figure,” Trump once said while sitting next to Ivanka. “I’ve said that if Ivanka weren’t my daughter perhaps I’d be dating her.”

“You know who is one of the great beauties of the world, according to everybody, and I helped create her?” Trump once asked Howard Stern. “Ivanka. My daughter, Ivanka. She’s six-feet tall. She has the best body.”

When asked his favorite thing that he has in common with his daughter, Trump once replied, “Sex.”

[CaptainCrunch]

LOL that's weird, its like Hulk Hogan taking pictures of his daughter sunbathing and commenting on her butt and then dating a younger girl that looked like his daughter.

The one thing that I will say about Trumps daughter, I think she's tremendously smart and well spoken, and that goes beyond her role in the apprentice.

When you compare her to her brothers, she's just far ahead of them.

[troutman]

Seth Meyers just had a good bit where Trump's sons took turns wearing a Donald mask, and saying that they loved the other.