US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3281

On March 12 2016 07:14 GreenHorizons wrote:


She says she misspoke... That sounds like a load.

+ Show Spoiler +

That's a long pronounced point she's making, not accidentally saying one name instead of another or something. She believed what she said, I think that is pretty clear.

On March 12 2016 08:43 oneofthem wrote:
[sic] can you imagine sanders in the role of the u.s. presidency[sic] faced with these hard choices? guy doesnt[sic] eveen[sic] recognize the modern global economy [sic] how would he be able to leverage our strength to effect[sic] the long game with china[sic]?

hillary[sic] is willing to do what it takes to defend the liberal world order [sic] sanders doesnt[sic] even ackowledge[sic] it

On March 12 2016 08:19 Sent. wrote:
Would be really funny if people here started arguing about what Clinton said in the same way they argued about Trump's "Islam hates us"

On March 12 2016 08:35 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:



Maybe she knows something we don't. Did Reagan have HIV/AIDS?



We have been praising Reagan for decades on issues he actually opposed. Like how we all still claim he ended the cold war, when in fact we know now he dragged it out by scaring the Soviets, playing into the hard of the soviet hardliners.


So we have to give Clinton a break here as well, hence we are hypocrites.

Also, why are we praising his wife so much? He was president. And he was a president that didn't even know what his staff were deciding to do in his name. He didn't even talk with Nancy because he didn't know what they would decide they would have him do.

If she had passed away outside of campaign time, she would get 2% of the attention she gets now.

On March 12 2016 09:19 Naracs_Duc wrote:


What's there to say about something someone apologized for saying?

On March 12 2016 09:35 oBlade wrote:
So it looks like Ben Carson would probably be secretary of education for Trump.

On March 12 2016 09:28 Sent. wrote:


I misunderstood the whole thing and didn't notice she apologized already, sorry

On March 12 2016 05:34 Lord Tolkien wrote:
As foreign policy is my pet subject, and what I've studied extensively, there is a great deal of truth to past criticisms of US foreign policy, most notably through the Cold War era. Though it should be noted many of the underlying problems we're dealing today in the Middle East, Maghreb, and Africa have much more to do with the aftermaths of decolonization and European imperialism as to any form of American bellicosity, for instance.

Really, one of the chief foreign policy errors of the United States in the past 70 years was a failure to adhere to our past anti-imperialist policies in favor of indigenous communities in the face of "communism". The long history of conflicts in Indochina and Vietnam for instance was Eisenhower's failure to recognize the anti-imperialist and, initially, pro-American outlook of Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese communists, and instead siding with the French as opposed to the Vietnamese. From that point onwards, we had essentially fashioned ourselves as the defenders of the old, European empires and spheres of influences, and set indigenous communist and socialist movements as the primary mover for "liberation", which of course we had to contain, even at the expense of liberal democracies abroad. The failure to differentiate between Soviet-controlled movements and more explicitly anti-imperial "socialist" or other liberation movements is the hallmark of our Cold War policies in Guatemala, Chile, Iran, Argentina, and Vietnam, to name a few.

On March 12 2016 09:38 Acrofales wrote:

Yay. We'll teach children the real function of pyramids!

On March 12 2016 08:43 oneofthem wrote:
can you imagine sanders in the role of the u.s. presidency faced with these hard choices? guy doesnt eveen recognize the modern global economy how would he be able to leverage our strength to effect the long game with china?

hillary is willing to do what it takes to defend the liberal world order sanders doesnt even ackowledge it