|
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 October 11 2016 00:54 LegalLord wrote:
John Rambo McCain is far worse than Trump on FP, if we're looking for a madman that we can say will make the world a dangerous place. Not that I'm a fan of Trump's on the FP front (he has some obvious blundering failures) but to say he is historically bad is to buy into a very idiotic and inaccurate narrative about relative FP prowess.
He is historically bad, you won't find a single major party nominee in modern history that knew less about diplomacy and international agreements than Trump does.
|
United States41991 Posts
I can only imagine China's response if Japan started a nuclear program at Trump's urging. It could only be aimed at them, and they know it.
|
On October 11 2016 01:01 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 00:54 LegalLord wrote:
John Rambo McCain is far worse than Trump on FP, if we're looking for a madman that we can say will make the world a dangerous place. Not that I'm a fan of Trump's on the FP front (he has some obvious blundering failures) but to say he is historically bad is to buy into a very idiotic and inaccurate narrative about relative FP prowess. Another ridiculous false equivalency. Clinton has made several foreign policy errors, but the idea that she is somehow the worst ever or is in any way comparable to Trump is utterly ridiculous. Trump constantly demonstrates that he knows nothing about FP and repeatedly makes incredibly dangerous and unhinged claims that would be a direct threat to our standing in the international community. You absolutely cannot compare someone who has made many FP mistakes (Clinton) and someone who has zero knowledge of the subject and yet still insists on making incredibly horrific proposals (Trump). We get it, you don't like Clinton, but you make yourself look less credible when you say, "Yea, Trump is bad so I'm probably not going to vote for him, but Clinton is so incredibly terrible..." all the time.
Trump's blundering at foreign policy is hypothetical at this point. He has no record of managing anything. All that we can do is assess his overall philosophy to infer what he is likely to do as president. This isn't the case for Hillary. She has a well-established record, most of which is quite bad. If the avoidance of military conflict and American adventurism is something that you value, it's quite clear that Trump is likely to be better in that regard than Hillary.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 11 2016 00:59 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 00:54 LegalLord wrote:
John Rambo McCain is far worse than Trump on FP, if we're looking for a madman that we can say will make the world a dangerous place. Not that I'm a fan of Trump's on the FP front (he has some obvious blundering failures) but to say he is historically bad is to buy into a very idiotic and inaccurate narrative about relative FP prowess. I disagree. I find trump's foreign policy blunders to be on a fundamentally worse level; and I find it to be quite accurate.
Going to have to ask you to be a bit more specific. Which FP blunders of Trump do you think are fundamentally dangerous?
|
United States41991 Posts
On October 11 2016 01:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 01:01 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 11 2016 00:54 LegalLord wrote:
John Rambo McCain is far worse than Trump on FP, if we're looking for a madman that we can say will make the world a dangerous place. Not that I'm a fan of Trump's on the FP front (he has some obvious blundering failures) but to say he is historically bad is to buy into a very idiotic and inaccurate narrative about relative FP prowess. Another ridiculous false equivalency. Clinton has made several foreign policy errors, but the idea that she is somehow the worst ever or is in any way comparable to Trump is utterly ridiculous. Trump constantly demonstrates that he knows nothing about FP and repeatedly makes incredibly dangerous and unhinged claims that would be a direct threat to our standing in the international community. You absolutely cannot compare someone who has made many FP mistakes (Clinton) and someone who has zero knowledge of the subject and yet still insists on making incredibly horrific proposals (Trump). We get it, you don't like Clinton, but you make yourself look less credible when you say, "Yea, Trump is bad so I'm probably not going to vote for him, but Clinton is so incredibly terrible..." all the time. Trump's blundering at foreign policy is hypothetical at this point. He has no record of managing anything. All that we can do is assess his overall philosophy to infer what he is likely to do as president. This isn't the case for Hillary. She has a well-established record, most of which is quite bad. If the avoidance of military conflict and American adventurism is something that you value, it's quite clear that Trump is likely to be better in that regard than Hillary.
Avoiding American adventurism
Destroying ISIS within 90 days
Pick one.
|
Norway28559 Posts
On October 11 2016 00:54 LegalLord wrote:
John Rambo McCain is far worse than Trump on FP, if we're looking for a madman that we can say will make the world a dangerous place. Not that I'm a fan of Trump's on the FP front (he has some obvious blundering failures) but to say he is historically bad is to buy into a very idiotic and inaccurate narrative about relative FP prowess.
He's historically ignorant of world affairs, he's historically unpredictable, he's historically brash. I'll grant that he's far from running a war-mongering campaign, but I think the assessment that he is a historically risky candidate, in the sense that the worst possible Trump scenarios are worse than what any other president has brought, is completely fair. In a way, I think the likelihood of US engaging in 'war' is more likely to happen under hillary, but I think the likelihood of the US engaging in war-crimes is far more likely to happen under Trump.
|
On October 11 2016 01:03 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 01:01 Stratos_speAr wrote:
We get it, you don't like Clinton, but you make yourself look less credible when you say, "Yea, Trump is bad so I'm probably not going to vote for him, but Clinton is so incredibly terrible..." all the time. As opposed to "I don't like Clinton but I'm going to repeat her talking points because Trump is so bad that anything is justified" which is perfectly valid? Get your head out of your ass. It's perfectly possible to criticize two candidates at once.
You can tell yourself that that's what you do and that you're being objective and not a shill or whatever, but you're lying to yourself.
You almost never criticize Trump because you just like being a contrarian. You briefly accept Trump's terribleness when pressed on it to try to morally vindicate yourself, but then constantly bash Clinton because you like to be that other guy that stands out and acts like he's not a "sheep" or a "shill" or whatever pseudo-intellectual analysis you want to throw out to make yourself look better. The whole time, all you're doing is creating a false equivalence between someone who is completely ignorant and utterly unhinged and someone who has done some pretty stupid things in the past but is overall at least knowledgeable and experienced on the topic of FP.
It completely undermines your credibility when you try to compare Clinton to Trump as if they're somehow comparably bad on FP. I'll discuss Clinton's FP failings with you all day if you're intellectually honest; hell, I even agree with you about many of Clinton's shortcomings, but comparing her to someone who knows absolutely nothing about the topic and outlines numerous proposals that would be unmitigated disasters isn't anywhere close to intellectually honest.
|
Foreign policy is more than just military -
NATO going from a guarantee to a "it depends"
Trade war with Mexico
Trade war with China
Shooting up the Iranians
Killing NAFTA
Killing the Paris agreement
Killing the Iranian nuclear agreement
Ignoring the sovereignty of nations when it suits him
List goes on and on... Trump will destroy our reputation on the global stage and the US will become a bully rather than a leader.
|
On October 11 2016 01:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 01:01 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 11 2016 00:54 LegalLord wrote:
John Rambo McCain is far worse than Trump on FP, if we're looking for a madman that we can say will make the world a dangerous place. Not that I'm a fan of Trump's on the FP front (he has some obvious blundering failures) but to say he is historically bad is to buy into a very idiotic and inaccurate narrative about relative FP prowess. Another ridiculous false equivalency. Clinton has made several foreign policy errors, but the idea that she is somehow the worst ever or is in any way comparable to Trump is utterly ridiculous. Trump constantly demonstrates that he knows nothing about FP and repeatedly makes incredibly dangerous and unhinged claims that would be a direct threat to our standing in the international community. You absolutely cannot compare someone who has made many FP mistakes (Clinton) and someone who has zero knowledge of the subject and yet still insists on making incredibly horrific proposals (Trump). We get it, you don't like Clinton, but you make yourself look less credible when you say, "Yea, Trump is bad so I'm probably not going to vote for him, but Clinton is so incredibly terrible..." all the time. Trump's blundering at foreign policy is hypothetical at this point. He has no record of managing anything. All that we can do is assess his overall philosophy to infer what he is likely to do as president. This isn't the case for Hillary. She has a well-established record, most of which is quite bad. If the avoidance of military conflict and American adventurism is something that you value, it's quite clear that Trump is likely to be better in that regard than Hillary.
Except the part where he promised to fire on Iranian ships if they made rude gestures our destroyers. Or that we might not come to the defense of an ally if attacked. Considering our intelligence services rely heavily on the assistance of other nations to prevent terrorist attacks, Trump’s plans to abandon previous agreements does not line up with keeping us safe.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 11 2016 01:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 00:54 LegalLord wrote:
John Rambo McCain is far worse than Trump on FP, if we're looking for a madman that we can say will make the world a dangerous place. Not that I'm a fan of Trump's on the FP front (he has some obvious blundering failures) but to say he is historically bad is to buy into a very idiotic and inaccurate narrative about relative FP prowess. He's historically ignorant of world affairs, he's historically unpredictable, he's historically brash. I'll grant that he's far from running a war-mongering campaign, but I think the assessment that he is a historically risky candidate, in the sense that the worst possible Trump scenarios are worse than what any other president has brought, is completely fair. In a way, I think the likelihood of US engaging in 'war' is more likely to happen under hillary, but I think the likelihood of the US engaging in war-crimes is far more likely to happen under Trump.
That much I won't disagree with. However, that a lot of the opposition to him as written out in the endorsement seems to be as a result of departure from general US FP goals as pursued by previous president, along with the obvious cluelessness on issues of importance, leads me to believe that there is a double purpose here: to call out some dangerous positions but also to push an agenda.
|
Take with a grain of salt:
|
On October 11 2016 01:05 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 00:59 zlefin wrote:On October 11 2016 00:54 LegalLord wrote:
John Rambo McCain is far worse than Trump on FP, if we're looking for a madman that we can say will make the world a dangerous place. Not that I'm a fan of Trump's on the FP front (he has some obvious blundering failures) but to say he is historically bad is to buy into a very idiotic and inaccurate narrative about relative FP prowess. I disagree. I find trump's foreign policy blunders to be on a fundamentally worse level; and I find it to be quite accurate. Going to have to ask you to be a bit more specific. Which FP blunders of Trump do you think are fundamentally dangerous?
claiming he won't necessarily uphold the NATO treaty.
advocating violating the geneva conventions on warfare.
these also re: xdaunt; as these aren't hypothetical blunders. he's already made blunders which have hurt american standing abroad. without even being in.
|
United States41991 Posts
What you've got to understand is that NATO is obsolete in a world in which terrorists launch attacks, not states. Sure, NATO has only ever been invoked once and sure, that time was in the wake of a terrorist attack and sure, following that terrorist attack NATO was the framework used to coordinate joint action to respond to it. But that doesn't mean... wait, I forgot where I was going here.
|
Based on the few predebate, post tape, polls, like reuters and the one above, they confirm my initial thoughts. He s taking a yugeeeee hit from the tape that is impossible to cover from his debate bump, if there is one.
|
Norway28559 Posts
On October 11 2016 01:11 KwarK wrote:
What you've got to understand is that NATO is obsolete in a world in which terrorists launch attacks, not states. Sure, NATO has only ever been invoked once and sure, that time was in the wake of a terrorist attack and sure, following that terrorist attack NATO was the framework used to coordinate joint action to respond to it. But that doesn't mean... wait, I forgot where I was going here.
hahaha
|
Nate Silver was saying there were some really bad polls coming out for Trump, even from groups that normally favor Republicans by a lot.
|
LegalLord is just upset that someone is mean to emperor Putin, it's in the genes.
To even compare Trump and any regular politician makes no sense. As many have pointed out, Trump has no experience, that alone should disqualify him. You wouldn't make someone chief of surgeon in the most prestigious hospital of your nation because of his 'general philosophy' and because he owns a lot of golf clubs. Clinton's FP record is flawed, but guess what so is everybody's FP record who had responsibility for several decades.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 11 2016 01:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 01:03 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:01 Stratos_speAr wrote:
We get it, you don't like Clinton, but you make yourself look less credible when you say, "Yea, Trump is bad so I'm probably not going to vote for him, but Clinton is so incredibly terrible..." all the time. As opposed to "I don't like Clinton but I'm going to repeat her talking points because Trump is so bad that anything is justified" which is perfectly valid? Get your head out of your ass. It's perfectly possible to criticize two candidates at once. You can tell yourself that that's what you do and that you're being objective and not a shill or whatever, but you're lying to yourself. You almost never criticize Trump because you just like being a contrarian. You briefly accept Trump's terribleness when pressed on it to try to morally vindicate yourself, but then constantly bash Clinton because you like to be that other guy that stands out and acts like he's not a "sheep" or a "shill" or whatever pseudo-intellectual analysis you want to throw out to make yourself look better. The whole time, all you're doing is creating a false equivalence between someone who is completely ignorant and utterly unhinged and someone who has done some pretty stupid things in the past but is overall at least knowledgeable and experienced on the topic of FP. It completely undermines your credibility when you try to compare Clinton to Trump as if they're somehow comparably bad on FP. I'll discuss Clinton's FP failings with you all day if you're intellectually honest; hell, I even agree with you about many of Clinton's shortcomings, but comparing her to someone who knows absolutely nothing about the topic and outlines numerous proposals that would be unmitigated disasters isn't anywhere close to intellectually honest.
Bitch please. I've criticized Trump plenty, I've mentioned a lot of things I don't like about him, and I've outlined my reasons in full why I don't intend to vote for him - and I would probably attack him more if not for the fact that the general flow of the thread makes that unnecessary. That I don't get on board with the hyperbolic assaults that some others would think are a must-do is simply because they aren't really warranted and are reaching.
I'm going to cut this random and unwarranted personal attack on me short, and end this all by simply telling you to fuck off. Thanks.
On October 11 2016 01:16 Nyxisto wrote:
LegalLord is just upset that someone is mean to emperor Putin, it's in the genes.
Whatever makes you feel better, buddy boy. Should have called him Putler and called me a paid Russian troll from the St. Petersburg troll farm if you're going full retard here.
|
I'm fairly convinced that Trump thinks 9/11 happened under Obama.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
