|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 24 2016 13:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 13:10 On_Slaught wrote:
You seriously think Trump wrote the policy aspects of that speech? Pretty sure I heard that Sessions worked on it. Of course he didn't write it. No presidential candidate writes their own speeches. And every presidential candidate relies upon advisers for guidance in forming policy. The point is that we're starting to see some policy depth to Trump's campaign.
There is a difference between needing guidance, like Hillary would need, and needing to be told what to do because you have no workable knowledge of foreign policy, like Trump.
Being well informed and knowledgeable aren't the same thing. Nothing Trump has ever said has shown he is knowledgeable on these subjects. Coming off as informed is the easy part.
|
GH, I recommend you give this a read. It's a post about the Arizona situation by the General Counsel of the Clinton campaign... in the s4p subreddit.
Link
|
On March 24 2016 13:58 ticklishmusic wrote:GH, I recommend you give this a read. It's a post about the Arizona situation by the General Counsel of the Clinton campaign... in the s4p subreddit. Link
That's a link to the nurse endorsement.
|
|
|
There are several responses there that touch on why that was an absurd (and rather late and obscure) response. We could start with totally ignoring that AZ isn't the first place this has happened or how Hillary surrogates were on television lauding the lines up until now.
It rings as hollow as most of what comes out of her camp.
Kudos for them eventually saying something though.
|
On March 24 2016 12:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 12:00 LegalLord wrote:On March 24 2016 11:37 xDaunt wrote:On March 24 2016 11:35 oneofthem wrote:On March 24 2016 11:27 xDaunt wrote:On March 24 2016 11:24 oneofthem wrote:On March 24 2016 11:17 xDaunt wrote:On March 24 2016 11:09 oneofthem wrote:On March 24 2016 11:06 xDaunt wrote:On March 24 2016 11:05 oneofthem wrote:
[quote]
this is because they are morons Are you really going to hold her up as a paragon of truth and virtue? Good fucking luck with that. Honesty and consistency are not Hillary's strengths. I find it hilarious that you're arguing otherwise. uh no it is okay to lie in politics. the younglings just vastly overvalue honesty and all that. you need to get shit done not choose a priest hillary is dedicated to the policy work and has only lied to do some politics. this is rly good What good policy work has she done? She was SoS during worst part of Obama's presidency foreign policy-wise. she's active on many committees while a senator. her current platform is the best the progressive side has to offer on many issues. her work as sos was marred by adventurism in some critical junctures but we look forward not exclusively back in assessing future capacity as president. bottom line she works hard, has sensibility for often complicated issues and is sincerely dedicated to pushing for progressive outcomes. many of obama's hanging policies need a detail focused follow through. she is really capable in this respect. See, I read this as an admission of her executive incompetence. I have no doubt that she has worked her ass off wherever she has been, but results matter. And her results over the course of 25 years in the national spotlight are wanting to say the least. The only reason why she has gone as far as she has is her last name. I totally get that you want a competent technocrat to be the president, but she is not it. i disagree having reviewed some of her armed forces committee work. she learns and is an arbitor of policy as they are presented by experts. many politicians dont even read that closely. no doubt shes made some highly questionable tradeoff moves that would show some lack of strategic sense but at worst she is not going to mess things up That doesn't even make any sense. You admit that she has made strategic errors, but you still think that she's not going to mess things up? Strategic errors of the sort that she has made demonstrate precisely the poor judgment that results in things getting messed up. I think the way I'd put it is that Hillary is weak and going to slowly make things worse, but the Republican party is going to make things a lot worse very quickly. Sanders is better than Hillary though not great, and while I wish I had a reason to like Hillary, the more I listen to her the less I think that she has a good vision for the future. Her supporters in here are remarkably capable of finding fault in others yet giving her infinite leeway on her inadequacies, for whatever reason. That's totally fair. I don't mind if people have different preferences for the candidates as a consequence of the candidates' differing platforms. What I am taking issue with is oneofthem's surprisingly blind faith in Hillary's competence when there really isn't much to speak for it, and plenty that speaks against it. Only the most partisan hacks dare argue that Obama had a good foreign policy record during his first term, and much of what happened then is looking progressively worse as time goes on. As secretary of state, it is clear that Hillary played a large role in that first term's foreign policy.
Part of the reason why Hillary resigned the position was that Obama was overruling her decisions. I belong to the camp that thinks Obama has been a FP trainwreck, but Clinton saved some of it, and disagreed with Obama in those aspects I thought most disastrous.
As for the field before us today, the candidates remaining (not Sanders, Trump, Cruz or Kasich) haven't got the experience or FP plan she does. If you combine the four of them, it still doesn't compare. They mostly sound incoherent (Trump's "UN resulations").
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
FP experience at making things worse (which Hillary has a whole lot of) is a fair bit worse than minimal experience but a saner policy. All of us who are of non-American origins have our biases (i.e. we want the US to be a proxy supporter of our own national interests) but overall I'd say that almost every major FP decision that Hillary has been part of has ended up working out pretty shitty for the US.
An article on her FP record:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/11/the-warmongering-record-of-hillary-clinton/
It's just too bad that the Republicans are just so much worse than Hillary at good FP that there's no credible alternative to her on that front.
|
On March 24 2016 15:46 LegalLord wrote:FP experience at making things worse (which Hillary has a whole lot of) is a fair bit worse than minimal experience but a saner policy. All of us who are of non-American origins have our biases (i.e. we want the US to be a proxy supporter of our own national interests) but overall I'd say that almost every major FP decision that Hillary has been part of has ended up working out pretty shitty for the US. An article on her FP record: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/11/the-warmongering-record-of-hillary-clinton/It's just too bad that the Republicans are just so much worse than Hillary at good FP that there's no credible alternative to her on that front.
No offence meant, but if you, Legallord, dislike her FP record, it's probably good for the US  FP is currently a non-issue though.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
Did I miss something, why is FP a nonissue? Its one of the few things the President actually does have a large amount of influence on.
|
On March 24 2016 17:53 Kipsate wrote:
Did I miss something, why is FP a nonissue? Its one of the few things the President actually does have a large amount of influence on.
You're preaching to the choir. It's a non-issue because Dems don't care about it and GOP is too much of a shit-show to focus on anything. I wish people discussed FP, but that's not what's going to decide any of the primaries.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
|
Norway28669 Posts
On March 24 2016 13:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 13:10 On_Slaught wrote:
You seriously think Trump wrote the policy aspects of that speech? Pretty sure I heard that Sessions worked on it. Of course he didn't write it. No presidential candidate writes their own speeches. And every presidential candidate relies upon advisers for guidance in forming policy. The point is that we're starting to see some policy depth to Trump's campaign.
I think Obama wrote some of his best received speeches of his presidential campaign himself, at least that's what I got from some Jon Favreau podcast.
|
On March 24 2016 13:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 13:10 On_Slaught wrote:
You seriously think Trump wrote the policy aspects of that speech? Pretty sure I heard that Sessions worked on it. Of course he didn't write it. No presidential candidate writes their own speeches. And every presidential candidate relies upon advisers for guidance in forming policy. The point is that we're starting to see some policy depth to Trump's campaign.
If there's one silver lining to Trump's candidacy (other than the fact that it's going to be hugely beneficial to the Democrats in November), it's that it really exposes the hypocrisy of some of the people supporting him while accusing the Democrats of incompetence and of lacking a plan. I mean, it's pretty mind-blowing to manage to argue that "we're starting to see some policy depth to Trump's campaign", referring to Trump reading a speech that he didn't write and that he probably doesn't understand, a few days after he displayed probably the most glaring lack of knowledge on policy issues in the history of major party presidential front runners. Can you imagine how the conservative posters in this thread would have reacted if the Democratic front runner had given those answers? He's so profoundly ignorant he wouldn't work as a character in a comedy show because it would not be believable. To gloss over this while arguing that Clinton is incompetent really takes intellectual dishonesty to a whole new level. Here's the "policy depth" that Trump is currently bringing to the campaign:
|
On March 24 2016 20:18 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 13:14 xDaunt wrote:On March 24 2016 13:10 On_Slaught wrote:
You seriously think Trump wrote the policy aspects of that speech? Pretty sure I heard that Sessions worked on it. Of course he didn't write it. No presidential candidate writes their own speeches. And every presidential candidate relies upon advisers for guidance in forming policy. The point is that we're starting to see some policy depth to Trump's campaign. If there's one silver lining to Trump's candidacy (other than the fact that it's going to be hugely beneficial to the Democrats in November), it's that it really exposes the hypocrisy of some of the people supporting him while accusing the Democrats of incompetence and of lacking a plan. I mean, it's pretty mind-blowing to manage to argue that "we're starting to see some policy depth to Trump's campaign", referring to Trump reading a speech that he didn't write and that he probably doesn't understand, a few days after he displayed probably the most glaring lack of knowledge on policy issues in the history of major party presidential front runners. Can you imagine how the conservative posters in this thread would have reacted if the Democratic front runner had given those answers? He's so profoundly ignorant he wouldn't work as a character in a comedy show because it would not be believable. To gloss over this while arguing that Clinton is incompetent really takes intellectual dishonesty to a whole new level. Here's the "policy depth" that Trump is currently bringing to the campaign: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/712850174838771712
Doesn't Hillary just flip-flop on policy issues depending on public opinion though?
I mean everyone has seen the videos from a decade ago when she was strongly opposed to gay marriage, the total opposite of her view now.Compare this to Trump, go watch the video from Letterman in 1988 and he's still saying exactly the same stuff about being ripped off on trade by Japan, the dumping, their currency manipulation etc.
For me though i think it's too late to implement those policies.He is correct that there has been dumping of goods by Japan, China, Korea etc, currency manipulation by those countries.... whatever but they hold so much American debt and so much power over the USA that you cannot just slap a 45% import tarriff and not expect China to dump 2 trillion the next day.Back in the 80s you could have done that, not now.No yearly trade surplus since 1976, 40 years, enough said.
America is done, it will collapse economically and most likely we will see a huge war in order to rally the people around the government as always happens in these situations.
|
Wow, unless my sarcasm detector is way off the post above mine is proof that there are actually people who know so little about economics that they buy into Trump's spiel :D
|
On March 24 2016 21:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 20:18 kwizach wrote:On March 24 2016 13:14 xDaunt wrote:On March 24 2016 13:10 On_Slaught wrote:
You seriously think Trump wrote the policy aspects of that speech? Pretty sure I heard that Sessions worked on it. Of course he didn't write it. No presidential candidate writes their own speeches. And every presidential candidate relies upon advisers for guidance in forming policy. The point is that we're starting to see some policy depth to Trump's campaign. If there's one silver lining to Trump's candidacy (other than the fact that it's going to be hugely beneficial to the Democrats in November), it's that it really exposes the hypocrisy of some of the people supporting him while accusing the Democrats of incompetence and of lacking a plan. I mean, it's pretty mind-blowing to manage to argue that "we're starting to see some policy depth to Trump's campaign", referring to Trump reading a speech that he didn't write and that he probably doesn't understand, a few days after he displayed probably the most glaring lack of knowledge on policy issues in the history of major party presidential front runners. Can you imagine how the conservative posters in this thread would have reacted if the Democratic front runner had given those answers? He's so profoundly ignorant he wouldn't work as a character in a comedy show because it would not be believable. To gloss over this while arguing that Clinton is incompetent really takes intellectual dishonesty to a whole new level. Here's the "policy depth" that Trump is currently bringing to the campaign: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/712850174838771712 Doesn't Hillary just flip-flop on policy issues depending on public opinion though? I mean everyone has seen the videos from a decade ago when she was strongly opposed to gay marriage, the total opposite of her view now.Compare this to Trump, go watch the video from Letterman in 1988 and he's still saying exactly the same stuff about being ripped off on trade by Japan, the dumping, their currency manipulation etc. For me though i think it's too late to implement those policies.He is correct that there has been dumping of goods by Japan, China, Korea etc, currency manipulation by those countries.... whatever but they hold so much American debt and so much power over the USA that you cannot just slap a 45% import tarriff and not expect China to dump 2 trillion the next day.Back in the 80s you could have done that, not now.No yearly trade surplus since 1976, 40 years, enough said. America is done, it will collapse economically and most likely we will see a huge war in order to rally the people around the government as always happens in these situations.
wait? the US "will collapse"?
almost 6 years ago you wrote on the forum that the US is already collapsing and that you are buying Silver..
I haven't been keeping up with too much , so China is selling bonds now?
Maybe that explains why the USD is collapsing , reminds me i need to buy more physical silver.
|
Pssh, he's just a few years off, puerk
|
Norway28669 Posts
technically it's hard to be wrong about any statement of 'will collapse' if you give no time frame and have a broad definition of collapse
|
As long as we assume the heat death of the universe will happen, he is 100% right. I don’t think buying silver will help, though.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 24 2016 17:13 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 15:46 LegalLord wrote:FP experience at making things worse (which Hillary has a whole lot of) is a fair bit worse than minimal experience but a saner policy. All of us who are of non-American origins have our biases (i.e. we want the US to be a proxy supporter of our own national interests) but overall I'd say that almost every major FP decision that Hillary has been part of has ended up working out pretty shitty for the US. An article on her FP record: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/11/the-warmongering-record-of-hillary-clinton/It's just too bad that the Republicans are just so much worse than Hillary at good FP that there's no credible alternative to her on that front. No offence meant, but if you, Legallord, dislike her FP record, it's probably good for the US
That is an unfortunate, yet very Baltic, take on things.
Not that it really matters because in terms of FP understanding, the US lives in a whole different world than every other country. No real sense of viable long-term strategy and easily duped into creating stupid conflicts that won't end well for the US, but benefit other countries that want to have the US fight wars on their behalf (with grossly overpriced airplanes no less). I wonder if that has a lot to do with why you like Hillary?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
