|
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 01:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:11 zlefin wrote:On October 11 2016 01:05 LegalLord wrote: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. Yeah, that much I will agree with, in that those are pretty terrible blunders on his part. Probably in a more direct way than some of the others I've seen (stay in Iraq for 100 years) though I'm not convinced that they are more dangerous. I'll add "blanket denouncement of Muslims" to your list as well. Starting a nuclear rivalry between Japan and China, two nations which still have a lot of animosity towards each other which is repressed by American military suppression of Japan and business with China? Again, we don't occupy Japan because we think Japan is too weak to defend itself. We occupy Japan because A) Japan is a great power that awoke too late to play the great power game and was denied its destiny and is mad about it B) We know damn well Japan could fuck shit up in East Asia if it chose C) Everyone in East Asia would freak the fuck out if we didn't occupy Japan
I like reason D): we said we would and signed a binding agreement that's sovereign law under the Constitution of the United States of America.
|
United States41991 Posts
On October 11 2016 01:29 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 01:26 KwarK wrote:On October 11 2016 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:11 zlefin wrote:On October 11 2016 01:05 LegalLord wrote: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. Yeah, that much I will agree with, in that those are pretty terrible blunders on his part. Probably in a more direct way than some of the others I've seen (stay in Iraq for 100 years) though I'm not convinced that they are more dangerous. I'll add "blanket denouncement of Muslims" to your list as well. Starting a nuclear rivalry between Japan and China, two nations which still have a lot of animosity towards each other which is repressed by American military suppression of Japan and business with China? Again, we don't occupy Japan because we think Japan is too weak to defend itself. We occupy Japan because A) Japan is a great power that awoke too late to play the great power game and was denied its destiny and is mad about it B) We know damn well Japan could fuck shit up in East Asia if it chose C) Everyone in East Asia would freak the fuck out if we didn't occupy Japan I feel that that falls quite well under the "NATO treaty" objection to Trump. I'm one of the last people who would advocate for any form of nuclear proliferation because the dangers of that are quite terribad.
I don't see how.
He wants to pull back from US global commitments. That's not the same as the NATO "it depends". Him thinking NATO is taking advantage of the US is a different issue than him being wholly ignorant of the degree to which a US guarantee of peace works to stop old rivalries from flaring up. I believe that Trump is genuinely unaware that there is any kind of bad feeling between the nations of the far East and that he thinks US soldiers in Japan are defending Japan, rather than reassuring China. The US safeguards global peace and prosperity. Trump seems to assume that peace and prosperity are the default state and that the structures laid in place to build them can be removed with no costs. But that's no different to his assumptions that air is always breathable and that the EPA doesn't do anything.
|
On October 11 2016 01:30 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 01:23 Nevuk wrote:
How big of a deal will it be if the libertarian party cracks the 5% mark and gets public funding? No one really knows, though I'd guess not that big of a deal given the libertarian tendency to say very little of substance once given the podium.
The platform that centers around the idea that government shouldn't be involved with the specific voters problem is not that compelling to anything with problems. It a core problem with Libertarian appeal to the average voter.
|
On October 11 2016 01:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 01:29 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:26 KwarK wrote:On October 11 2016 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:11 zlefin wrote:On October 11 2016 01:05 LegalLord wrote: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. Yeah, that much I will agree with, in that those are pretty terrible blunders on his part. Probably in a more direct way than some of the others I've seen (stay in Iraq for 100 years) though I'm not convinced that they are more dangerous. I'll add "blanket denouncement of Muslims" to your list as well. Starting a nuclear rivalry between Japan and China, two nations which still have a lot of animosity towards each other which is repressed by American military suppression of Japan and business with China? Again, we don't occupy Japan because we think Japan is too weak to defend itself. We occupy Japan because A) Japan is a great power that awoke too late to play the great power game and was denied its destiny and is mad about it B) We know damn well Japan could fuck shit up in East Asia if it chose C) Everyone in East Asia would freak the fuck out if we didn't occupy Japan I feel that that falls quite well under the "NATO treaty" objection to Trump. I'm one of the last people who would advocate for any form of nuclear proliferation because the dangers of that are quite terribad. I don't see how. He wants to pull back from US global commitments. That's not the same as the NATO "it depends". Him thinking NATO is taking advantage of the US is a different issue than him being wholly ignorant of the degree to which a US guarantee of peace works to stop old rivalries from flaring up. I believe that Trump is genuinely unaware that there is any kind of bad feeling between the nations of the far East and that he thinks US soldiers in Japan are defending Japan, rather than reassuring China. The US safeguards global peace and prosperity. Trump seems to assume that peace and prosperity are the default state and that the structures laid in place to build them can be removed with no costs. But that's no different to his assumptions that air is always breathable and that the EPA doesn't do anything.
Trump is catering of the growing population of people that have never experienced a crisis of any sort. People who believe that the current state of the world is its default that. That racism a back bench issue. Civil rights were obtained by minorities without conflict or violence. That no one will go to war again because we figured it out was a bad idea. That we will never have a Great Depression ever again because "the free market" will save us. That our goverment is forever, will never fall. They don't feel the fear of how bad things can go because we have always stopped them before they happen.
|
On October 11 2016 01:34 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 01:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2016 01:21 TheYango wrote:
Foreign policy is one of those areas where I would prefer "guaranteed kind-of bad" to "high variance could go either way". Just because the amount that's possible for a US president to fuck up with regard to FP is much higher than in other areas. If Trump's possibilities are "better than Clinton" and "totally fuck America's relationship with the rest of the world", I'll still take Clinton even though I'm not exactly pleased with her track record either.
However, take my opinion with a grain of salt given that:
a) I'm a very risk-averse person by nature, and
b) I know very little about foreign policy. I agree. I think there's a chance Clinton will make some kind of "gee that was pretty dumb" decisions, but one of the big things that make me okay is that she's promised no boots on the ground (though the flip side we've got a lot of adviser-type folks). I also think she'll keep Putin's nuts in the vise grip we've had, and she can probably make progress on our pivot to Asia. On the other hand, Trump could do something to make the Iraq war look like a little oopsie while doing plenty of other things that would be considered egregiously stupid. For Clinton, my big worry is that a continuation of all those "gee that was pretty dumb" decisions that she has a pretty notable tendency to make is going to slowly but surely lead to a "we should rethink to what extent our nation aligns itself with US FP interests" the world over. Won't end the world, but it's far from what I want. I'd wish for a better option but that's what we've got this time around.
The Middle East is a disgusting cesspool created by centuries of European imperialism which we were dumb enough to wade into though. I don't think any of our allies have really freaked out because of the Obama-Clinton foreign policy approach. Well, maybe Saudi Arabia but we can agree they're not exactly a great ally and really an example of politics making for odd bedfellows. Israel really ought to stop complaining too, she's the overly clingy girlfriend who gets annoyed that US-senpai doesn't put her number one all the time for everything but still gets stupid amounts of attention.
|
On October 11 2016 00:45 LegalLord wrote:
Of all the people whose FP you could go out and endorse, Hillary Clinton is one of the worst.
Cute but no.
Most of the FP folks I talk with are perfectly happy supporting Clinton, moreso than Obama in fact, who has snubbed the community on occasion, particularly on Syria.
Literally every FP expert finds Trump a dangerous lunatic.
|
|
|
United States41991 Posts
On October 11 2016 01:40 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 01:34 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2016 01:21 TheYango wrote:
Foreign policy is one of those areas where I would prefer "guaranteed kind-of bad" to "high variance could go either way". Just because the amount that's possible for a US president to fuck up with regard to FP is much higher than in other areas. If Trump's possibilities are "better than Clinton" and "totally fuck America's relationship with the rest of the world", I'll still take Clinton even though I'm not exactly pleased with her track record either.
However, take my opinion with a grain of salt given that:
a) I'm a very risk-averse person by nature, and
b) I know very little about foreign policy. I agree. I think there's a chance Clinton will make some kind of "gee that was pretty dumb" decisions, but one of the big things that make me okay is that she's promised no boots on the ground (though the flip side we've got a lot of adviser-type folks). I also think she'll keep Putin's nuts in the vise grip we've had, and she can probably make progress on our pivot to Asia. On the other hand, Trump could do something to make the Iraq war look like a little oopsie while doing plenty of other things that would be considered egregiously stupid. For Clinton, my big worry is that a continuation of all those "gee that was pretty dumb" decisions that she has a pretty notable tendency to make is going to slowly but surely lead to a "we should rethink to what extent our nation aligns itself with US FP interests" the world over. Won't end the world, but it's far from what I want. I'd wish for a better option but that's what we've got this time around. The Middle East is a disgusting cesspool created by centuries of European imperialism which we were dumb enough to wade into though. I don't think any of our allies have really freaked out because of the Obama-Clinton foreign policy approach. Well, maybe Saudi Arabia but we can agree they're not exactly a great ally and really an example of politics making for odd bedfellows. Israel really ought to stop complaining too, she's the overly clingy girlfriend who gets annoyed that US-senpai doesn't put her number one all the time for everything but still gets stupid amounts of attention.
Dude, the Ottoman Empire collapsed less than a hundred years ago. It's <1 century of imperialism and the US was as much a part of that as anyone else with Standard Oil backing the Saud family.
The Middle East isn't Indochina, it didn't become relevant until oil became currency.
|
On October 11 2016 01:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 01:40 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2016 01:34 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2016 01:21 TheYango wrote:
Foreign policy is one of those areas where I would prefer "guaranteed kind-of bad" to "high variance could go either way". Just because the amount that's possible for a US president to fuck up with regard to FP is much higher than in other areas. If Trump's possibilities are "better than Clinton" and "totally fuck America's relationship with the rest of the world", I'll still take Clinton even though I'm not exactly pleased with her track record either.
However, take my opinion with a grain of salt given that:
a) I'm a very risk-averse person by nature, and
b) I know very little about foreign policy. I agree. I think there's a chance Clinton will make some kind of "gee that was pretty dumb" decisions, but one of the big things that make me okay is that she's promised no boots on the ground (though the flip side we've got a lot of adviser-type folks). I also think she'll keep Putin's nuts in the vise grip we've had, and she can probably make progress on our pivot to Asia. On the other hand, Trump could do something to make the Iraq war look like a little oopsie while doing plenty of other things that would be considered egregiously stupid. For Clinton, my big worry is that a continuation of all those "gee that was pretty dumb" decisions that she has a pretty notable tendency to make is going to slowly but surely lead to a "we should rethink to what extent our nation aligns itself with US FP interests" the world over. Won't end the world, but it's far from what I want. I'd wish for a better option but that's what we've got this time around. The Middle East is a disgusting cesspool created by centuries of European imperialism which we were dumb enough to wade into though. I don't think any of our allies have really freaked out because of the Obama-Clinton foreign policy approach. Well, maybe Saudi Arabia but we can agree they're not exactly a great ally and really an example of politics making for odd bedfellows. Israel really ought to stop complaining too, she's the overly clingy girlfriend who gets annoyed that US-senpai doesn't put her number one all the time for everything but still gets stupid amounts of attention. Dude, the Ottoman Empire collapsed less than a hundred years ago. It's <1 century of imperialism and the US was as much a part of that as anyone else with Standard Oil backing the Saud family. The Middle East isn't Indochina, it didn't become relevant until oil became currency.
Yeah, I remember your post about it. Shh, let me whitewash the US's rule in backing the Sauds.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 11 2016 01:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 01:29 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:26 KwarK wrote:On October 11 2016 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:11 zlefin wrote:On October 11 2016 01:05 LegalLord wrote: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. Yeah, that much I will agree with, in that those are pretty terrible blunders on his part. Probably in a more direct way than some of the others I've seen (stay in Iraq for 100 years) though I'm not convinced that they are more dangerous. I'll add "blanket denouncement of Muslims" to your list as well. Starting a nuclear rivalry between Japan and China, two nations which still have a lot of animosity towards each other which is repressed by American military suppression of Japan and business with China? Again, we don't occupy Japan because we think Japan is too weak to defend itself. We occupy Japan because A) Japan is a great power that awoke too late to play the great power game and was denied its destiny and is mad about it B) We know damn well Japan could fuck shit up in East Asia if it chose C) Everyone in East Asia would freak the fuck out if we didn't occupy Japan I feel that that falls quite well under the "NATO treaty" objection to Trump. I'm one of the last people who would advocate for any form of nuclear proliferation because the dangers of that are quite terribad. I don't see how. He wants to pull back from US global commitments. That's not the same as the NATO "it depends". Him thinking NATO is taking advantage of the US is a different issue than him being wholly ignorant of the degree to which a US guarantee of peace works to stop old rivalries from flaring up. I believe that Trump is genuinely unaware that there is any kind of bad feeling between the nations of the far East and that he thinks US soldiers in Japan are defending Japan, rather than reassuring China. The US safeguards global peace and prosperity. Trump seems to assume that peace and prosperity are the default state and that the structures laid in place to build them can be removed with no costs. But that's no different to his assumptions that air is always breathable and that the EPA doesn't do anything.
Basically, the entire "NATO and allies" issue is that Trump goes after the "our allies are taking advantage of us" when really the issue is "the US makes allies bear the brunt of the consequences for its own FP actions." The US keeps nuclear weapons and military bases in other countries to stop them from doing the same and the cost of that is smaller than the cost of every semi-capable country going its own way on FP, leading to more rivalries. Japan is the same.
On October 11 2016 01:41 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 00:45 LegalLord wrote:
Of all the people whose FP you could go out and endorse, Hillary Clinton is one of the worst. Cute but no. Most of the FP folks I talk with are perfectly happy supporting Clinton, moreso than Obama in fact, who has snubbed the community on occasion, particularly on Syria. Literally every FP expert finds Trump a dangerous lunatic.
That Hillary Clinton is supported by the "FP folk" is something which I doubt less than I doubt the judgment of said FP folk. That Trump is probably worse is not hard to argue for - but it's worth looking at absolute evaluations of each candidate on FP, not just relative, and if you do that then Hillary Clinton will not look quite so good.
|
Hungary176 Posts
On October 11 2016 01:52 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 01:35 KwarK wrote:On October 11 2016 01:29 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:26 KwarK wrote:On October 11 2016 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:11 zlefin wrote:On October 11 2016 01:05 LegalLord wrote: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. Yeah, that much I will agree with, in that those are pretty terrible blunders on his part. Probably in a more direct way than some of the others I've seen (stay in Iraq for 100 years) though I'm not convinced that they are more dangerous. I'll add "blanket denouncement of Muslims" to your list as well. Starting a nuclear rivalry between Japan and China, two nations which still have a lot of animosity towards each other which is repressed by American military suppression of Japan and business with China? Again, we don't occupy Japan because we think Japan is too weak to defend itself. We occupy Japan because A) Japan is a great power that awoke too late to play the great power game and was denied its destiny and is mad about it B) We know damn well Japan could fuck shit up in East Asia if it chose C) Everyone in East Asia would freak the fuck out if we didn't occupy Japan I feel that that falls quite well under the "NATO treaty" objection to Trump. I'm one of the last people who would advocate for any form of nuclear proliferation because the dangers of that are quite terribad. I don't see how. He wants to pull back from US global commitments. That's not the same as the NATO "it depends". Him thinking NATO is taking advantage of the US is a different issue than him being wholly ignorant of the degree to which a US guarantee of peace works to stop old rivalries from flaring up. I believe that Trump is genuinely unaware that there is any kind of bad feeling between the nations of the far East and that he thinks US soldiers in Japan are defending Japan, rather than reassuring China. The US safeguards global peace and prosperity. Trump seems to assume that peace and prosperity are the default state and that the structures laid in place to build them can be removed with no costs. But that's no different to his assumptions that air is always breathable and that the EPA doesn't do anything. Basically, the entire "NATO and allies" issue is that Trump goes after the "our allies are taking advantage of us" when really the issue is "the US makes allies bear the brunt of the consequences for its own FP actions." The US keeps nuclear weapons and military bases in other countries to stop them from doing the same and the cost of that is smaller than the cost of every semi-capable country going its own way on FP, leading to more rivalries. Japan is the same. Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 01:41 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 11 2016 00:45 LegalLord wrote:
Of all the people whose FP you could go out and endorse, Hillary Clinton is one of the worst. Cute but no. Most of the FP folks I talk with are perfectly happy supporting Clinton, moreso than Obama in fact, who has snubbed the community on occasion, particularly on Syria. Literally every FP expert finds Trump a dangerous lunatic. That Hillary Clinton is supported by the "FP folk" is something which I doubt less than I doubt the judgment of said FP folk. That Trump is probably worse is not hard to argue for - but it's worth looking at absolute evaluations of each candidate on FP, not just relative, and if you do that then Hillary Clinton will not look quite so good.
How does the last part make sense?
You have to decide which is better of two things.
The relative difference shows one is better.
What difference does the absolute value make?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 11 2016 01:40 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 01:34 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:26 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2016 01:21 TheYango wrote:
Foreign policy is one of those areas where I would prefer "guaranteed kind-of bad" to "high variance could go either way". Just because the amount that's possible for a US president to fuck up with regard to FP is much higher than in other areas. If Trump's possibilities are "better than Clinton" and "totally fuck America's relationship with the rest of the world", I'll still take Clinton even though I'm not exactly pleased with her track record either.
However, take my opinion with a grain of salt given that:
a) I'm a very risk-averse person by nature, and
b) I know very little about foreign policy. I agree. I think there's a chance Clinton will make some kind of "gee that was pretty dumb" decisions, but one of the big things that make me okay is that she's promised no boots on the ground (though the flip side we've got a lot of adviser-type folks). I also think she'll keep Putin's nuts in the vise grip we've had, and she can probably make progress on our pivot to Asia. On the other hand, Trump could do something to make the Iraq war look like a little oopsie while doing plenty of other things that would be considered egregiously stupid. For Clinton, my big worry is that a continuation of all those "gee that was pretty dumb" decisions that she has a pretty notable tendency to make is going to slowly but surely lead to a "we should rethink to what extent our nation aligns itself with US FP interests" the world over. Won't end the world, but it's far from what I want. I'd wish for a better option but that's what we've got this time around. The Middle East is a disgusting cesspool created by centuries of European imperialism which we were dumb enough to wade into though. I don't think any of our allies have really freaked out because of the Obama-Clinton foreign policy approach. Well, maybe Saudi Arabia but we can agree they're not exactly a great ally and really an example of politics making for odd bedfellows. Israel really ought to stop complaining too, she's the overly clingy girlfriend who gets annoyed that US-senpai doesn't put her number one all the time for everything but still gets stupid amounts of attention.
The spread of terrorism to Europe and the refugee crisis are the direct results of the US efforts in the region, right now and in previous administrations. Beyond the Iraq/Afghanistan war bills, Europe has paid the brunt of the cost for US intervention in the region, and I'm sure that they are none too pleased about that. If that kind of "US fights, Europe pays" arrangement continues then the Europeans will slowly but surely drift away from allowing the US to do that.
Saudi Arabia is a non-ally that is nominally allied to the US but really just takes aid then turns around and fucks the world over. Israel is a small and vulnerable nation that has a hell of a lot of enemies that would like to kill it, so I'm not surprised that they act like every other small and vulnerable nation does.
|
On October 11 2016 02:00 Evotroid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 01:52 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:35 KwarK wrote:On October 11 2016 01:29 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:26 KwarK wrote:On October 11 2016 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:11 zlefin wrote:On October 11 2016 01:05 LegalLord wrote: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. Yeah, that much I will agree with, in that those are pretty terrible blunders on his part. Probably in a more direct way than some of the others I've seen (stay in Iraq for 100 years) though I'm not convinced that they are more dangerous. I'll add "blanket denouncement of Muslims" to your list as well. Starting a nuclear rivalry between Japan and China, two nations which still have a lot of animosity towards each other which is repressed by American military suppression of Japan and business with China? Again, we don't occupy Japan because we think Japan is too weak to defend itself. We occupy Japan because A) Japan is a great power that awoke too late to play the great power game and was denied its destiny and is mad about it B) We know damn well Japan could fuck shit up in East Asia if it chose C) Everyone in East Asia would freak the fuck out if we didn't occupy Japan I feel that that falls quite well under the "NATO treaty" objection to Trump. I'm one of the last people who would advocate for any form of nuclear proliferation because the dangers of that are quite terribad. I don't see how. He wants to pull back from US global commitments. That's not the same as the NATO "it depends". Him thinking NATO is taking advantage of the US is a different issue than him being wholly ignorant of the degree to which a US guarantee of peace works to stop old rivalries from flaring up. I believe that Trump is genuinely unaware that there is any kind of bad feeling between the nations of the far East and that he thinks US soldiers in Japan are defending Japan, rather than reassuring China. The US safeguards global peace and prosperity. Trump seems to assume that peace and prosperity are the default state and that the structures laid in place to build them can be removed with no costs. But that's no different to his assumptions that air is always breathable and that the EPA doesn't do anything. Basically, the entire "NATO and allies" issue is that Trump goes after the "our allies are taking advantage of us" when really the issue is "the US makes allies bear the brunt of the consequences for its own FP actions." The US keeps nuclear weapons and military bases in other countries to stop them from doing the same and the cost of that is smaller than the cost of every semi-capable country going its own way on FP, leading to more rivalries. Japan is the same. On October 11 2016 01:41 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 11 2016 00:45 LegalLord wrote:
Of all the people whose FP you could go out and endorse, Hillary Clinton is one of the worst. Cute but no. Most of the FP folks I talk with are perfectly happy supporting Clinton, moreso than Obama in fact, who has snubbed the community on occasion, particularly on Syria. Literally every FP expert finds Trump a dangerous lunatic. That Hillary Clinton is supported by the "FP folk" is something which I doubt less than I doubt the judgment of said FP folk. That Trump is probably worse is not hard to argue for - but it's worth looking at absolute evaluations of each candidate on FP, not just relative, and if you do that then Hillary Clinton will not look quite so good. How does the last part make sense? You have to decide which is better of two things. The relative difference shows one is better. What difference does the absolute value make?
LegalLord has already pretty much accepted the most likely outcome of the race and doesn't support Trump.
The "absolute value" of her FP knowledge/accomplishments will be what we can expect from her presidential term and the potential legacy of it.
I agree with him that I don't think the outlook is that good, but I don't think it will be horrible.
|
Canada11279 Posts
On October 11 2016 01:32 ticklishmusic wrote:
weld at the top of the libertarian party couldve shot them into relevance but instead they have gary "what is aleppo" johnson.
Even without Johnson, the Libertarian party is a long ways away from being properly in the spotlight. I don't know why your third parties are so trash, but watching the debate, even "what is aleppo" Johnson was head and shoulders above everyone else there. It didn't seems like even a third tier party like our Green's, struggling to get one MP in the House. It was more akin to our Marijuana Party or our Pirate Party... you had someone stripping on stage for goodness sake. They need some work to become a serious party- even parachuting in Ron Paul I don't think would help if a writer's convention business meeting has more decorum than you.
|
On October 11 2016 01:52 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 01:35 KwarK wrote:On October 11 2016 01:29 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:26 KwarK wrote:On October 11 2016 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:11 zlefin wrote:On October 11 2016 01:05 LegalLord wrote: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. Yeah, that much I will agree with, in that those are pretty terrible blunders on his part. Probably in a more direct way than some of the others I've seen (stay in Iraq for 100 years) though I'm not convinced that they are more dangerous. I'll add "blanket denouncement of Muslims" to your list as well. Starting a nuclear rivalry between Japan and China, two nations which still have a lot of animosity towards each other which is repressed by American military suppression of Japan and business with China? Again, we don't occupy Japan because we think Japan is too weak to defend itself. We occupy Japan because A) Japan is a great power that awoke too late to play the great power game and was denied its destiny and is mad about it B) We know damn well Japan could fuck shit up in East Asia if it chose C) Everyone in East Asia would freak the fuck out if we didn't occupy Japan I feel that that falls quite well under the "NATO treaty" objection to Trump. I'm one of the last people who would advocate for any form of nuclear proliferation because the dangers of that are quite terribad. I don't see how. He wants to pull back from US global commitments. That's not the same as the NATO "it depends". Him thinking NATO is taking advantage of the US is a different issue than him being wholly ignorant of the degree to which a US guarantee of peace works to stop old rivalries from flaring up. I believe that Trump is genuinely unaware that there is any kind of bad feeling between the nations of the far East and that he thinks US soldiers in Japan are defending Japan, rather than reassuring China. The US safeguards global peace and prosperity. Trump seems to assume that peace and prosperity are the default state and that the structures laid in place to build them can be removed with no costs. But that's no different to his assumptions that air is always breathable and that the EPA doesn't do anything. Basically, the entire "NATO and allies" issue is that Trump goes after the "our allies are taking advantage of us" when really the issue is "the US makes allies bear the brunt of the consequences for its own FP actions." The US keeps nuclear weapons and military bases in other countries to stop them from doing the same and the cost of that is smaller than the cost of every semi-capable country going its own way on FP, leading to more rivalries. Japan is the same. Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 01:41 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 11 2016 00:45 LegalLord wrote:
Of all the people whose FP you could go out and endorse, Hillary Clinton is one of the worst. Cute but no. Most of the FP folks I talk with are perfectly happy supporting Clinton, moreso than Obama in fact, who has snubbed the community on occasion, particularly on Syria. Literally every FP expert finds Trump a dangerous lunatic. That Hillary Clinton is supported by the "FP folk" is something which I doubt less than I doubt the judgment of said FP folk. That Trump is probably worse is not hard to argue for - but it's worth looking at absolute evaluations of each candidate on FP, not just relative, and if you do that then Hillary Clinton will not look quite so good.
I think its very important to keep in mind that these 'We have never endorsed but we are endorsing Hillary' Is not because she is the greatest gift from god ever. But because Trump is just so damn scary and dangerous that it no longer matters who his opponent is.
Its a common complaint from the right that to often Hillary supporters go this route but these are not Hillary supporters but (publicly) Neutrals.
Its worth stepping back and wondering just why all these historically neutral organizations are coming out to renounce Trump, because clearly in their history there has never been as unfit a candidate as Trump (in their eyes).
|
On October 11 2016 01:52 LegalLord wrote:
That Hillary Clinton is supported by the "FP folk" is something which I doubt less than I doubt the judgment of said FP folk. That Trump is probably worse is not hard to argue for - but it's worth looking at absolute evaluations of each candidate on FP, not just relative, and if you do that then Hillary Clinton will not look quite so good.
I think you'll find we pay much closer attention to her policies, as well as actual accomplishments, than you do, since knowing, say, what the next President's policies on NK will be, is fairly important to some. Those who've directly worked with her speak of her in nothing but glowing terms.
I still need to address your ridiculous assertions about Russia and NATO, so I'll respond fully when I'm not on a phone tonight.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 11 2016 02:00 Evotroid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 01:52 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:35 KwarK wrote:On October 11 2016 01:29 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:26 KwarK wrote:On October 11 2016 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:11 zlefin wrote:On October 11 2016 01:05 LegalLord wrote: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. Yeah, that much I will agree with, in that those are pretty terrible blunders on his part. Probably in a more direct way than some of the others I've seen (stay in Iraq for 100 years) though I'm not convinced that they are more dangerous. I'll add "blanket denouncement of Muslims" to your list as well. Starting a nuclear rivalry between Japan and China, two nations which still have a lot of animosity towards each other which is repressed by American military suppression of Japan and business with China? Again, we don't occupy Japan because we think Japan is too weak to defend itself. We occupy Japan because A) Japan is a great power that awoke too late to play the great power game and was denied its destiny and is mad about it B) We know damn well Japan could fuck shit up in East Asia if it chose C) Everyone in East Asia would freak the fuck out if we didn't occupy Japan I feel that that falls quite well under the "NATO treaty" objection to Trump. I'm one of the last people who would advocate for any form of nuclear proliferation because the dangers of that are quite terribad. I don't see how. He wants to pull back from US global commitments. That's not the same as the NATO "it depends". Him thinking NATO is taking advantage of the US is a different issue than him being wholly ignorant of the degree to which a US guarantee of peace works to stop old rivalries from flaring up. I believe that Trump is genuinely unaware that there is any kind of bad feeling between the nations of the far East and that he thinks US soldiers in Japan are defending Japan, rather than reassuring China. The US safeguards global peace and prosperity. Trump seems to assume that peace and prosperity are the default state and that the structures laid in place to build them can be removed with no costs. But that's no different to his assumptions that air is always breathable and that the EPA doesn't do anything. Basically, the entire "NATO and allies" issue is that Trump goes after the "our allies are taking advantage of us" when really the issue is "the US makes allies bear the brunt of the consequences for its own FP actions." The US keeps nuclear weapons and military bases in other countries to stop them from doing the same and the cost of that is smaller than the cost of every semi-capable country going its own way on FP, leading to more rivalries. Japan is the same. On October 11 2016 01:41 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 11 2016 00:45 LegalLord wrote:
Of all the people whose FP you could go out and endorse, Hillary Clinton is one of the worst. Cute but no. Most of the FP folks I talk with are perfectly happy supporting Clinton, moreso than Obama in fact, who has snubbed the community on occasion, particularly on Syria. Literally every FP expert finds Trump a dangerous lunatic. That Hillary Clinton is supported by the "FP folk" is something which I doubt less than I doubt the judgment of said FP folk. That Trump is probably worse is not hard to argue for - but it's worth looking at absolute evaluations of each candidate on FP, not just relative, and if you do that then Hillary Clinton will not look quite so good. How does the last part make sense? You have to decide which is better of two things. The relative difference shows one is better. What difference does the absolute value make?
It makes the erroneous assumption that all that matters is this one election, this one four-year term, and that we shouldn't look to the longer term and discuss the negative consequences of what the "better choice" will lead to - and how we should look to prevent those when the chance arises. As I mentioned before, political movements are never about "this one election" but about long-term votes.
|
On October 11 2016 02:03 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 02:00 Evotroid wrote:On October 11 2016 01:52 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:35 KwarK wrote:On October 11 2016 01:29 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:26 KwarK wrote:On October 11 2016 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:11 zlefin wrote:On October 11 2016 01:05 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 00:59 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
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. Yeah, that much I will agree with, in that those are pretty terrible blunders on his part. Probably in a more direct way than some of the others I've seen (stay in Iraq for 100 years) though I'm not convinced that they are more dangerous. I'll add "blanket denouncement of Muslims" to your list as well. Starting a nuclear rivalry between Japan and China, two nations which still have a lot of animosity towards each other which is repressed by American military suppression of Japan and business with China? Again, we don't occupy Japan because we think Japan is too weak to defend itself. We occupy Japan because A) Japan is a great power that awoke too late to play the great power game and was denied its destiny and is mad about it B) We know damn well Japan could fuck shit up in East Asia if it chose C) Everyone in East Asia would freak the fuck out if we didn't occupy Japan I feel that that falls quite well under the "NATO treaty" objection to Trump. I'm one of the last people who would advocate for any form of nuclear proliferation because the dangers of that are quite terribad. I don't see how. He wants to pull back from US global commitments. That's not the same as the NATO "it depends". Him thinking NATO is taking advantage of the US is a different issue than him being wholly ignorant of the degree to which a US guarantee of peace works to stop old rivalries from flaring up. I believe that Trump is genuinely unaware that there is any kind of bad feeling between the nations of the far East and that he thinks US soldiers in Japan are defending Japan, rather than reassuring China. The US safeguards global peace and prosperity. Trump seems to assume that peace and prosperity are the default state and that the structures laid in place to build them can be removed with no costs. But that's no different to his assumptions that air is always breathable and that the EPA doesn't do anything. Basically, the entire "NATO and allies" issue is that Trump goes after the "our allies are taking advantage of us" when really the issue is "the US makes allies bear the brunt of the consequences for its own FP actions." The US keeps nuclear weapons and military bases in other countries to stop them from doing the same and the cost of that is smaller than the cost of every semi-capable country going its own way on FP, leading to more rivalries. Japan is the same. On October 11 2016 01:41 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 11 2016 00:45 LegalLord wrote:
Of all the people whose FP you could go out and endorse, Hillary Clinton is one of the worst. Cute but no. Most of the FP folks I talk with are perfectly happy supporting Clinton, moreso than Obama in fact, who has snubbed the community on occasion, particularly on Syria. Literally every FP expert finds Trump a dangerous lunatic. That Hillary Clinton is supported by the "FP folk" is something which I doubt less than I doubt the judgment of said FP folk. That Trump is probably worse is not hard to argue for - but it's worth looking at absolute evaluations of each candidate on FP, not just relative, and if you do that then Hillary Clinton will not look quite so good. How does the last part make sense? You have to decide which is better of two things. The relative difference shows one is better. What difference does the absolute value make? It makes the erroneous assumption that all that matters is this one election, this one four-year term, and that we shouldn't look to the longer term and discuss the negative consequences of what the "better choice" will lead to - and how we should look to prevent those when the chance arises. As I mentioned before, political movements are never about "this one election" but about long-term votes.
But then that begs the question of "What else do we do?"
You just said that you don't think Trump is better on FP, and I would be surprised if you said that Johnson or Stein are. So how do we vote for the long-term in this election?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 11 2016 02:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 02:03 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 02:00 Evotroid wrote:On October 11 2016 01:52 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:35 KwarK wrote:On October 11 2016 01:29 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:26 KwarK wrote:On October 11 2016 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:11 zlefin wrote:On October 11 2016 01:05 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
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. Yeah, that much I will agree with, in that those are pretty terrible blunders on his part. Probably in a more direct way than some of the others I've seen (stay in Iraq for 100 years) though I'm not convinced that they are more dangerous. I'll add "blanket denouncement of Muslims" to your list as well. Starting a nuclear rivalry between Japan and China, two nations which still have a lot of animosity towards each other which is repressed by American military suppression of Japan and business with China? Again, we don't occupy Japan because we think Japan is too weak to defend itself. We occupy Japan because A) Japan is a great power that awoke too late to play the great power game and was denied its destiny and is mad about it B) We know damn well Japan could fuck shit up in East Asia if it chose C) Everyone in East Asia would freak the fuck out if we didn't occupy Japan I feel that that falls quite well under the "NATO treaty" objection to Trump. I'm one of the last people who would advocate for any form of nuclear proliferation because the dangers of that are quite terribad. I don't see how. He wants to pull back from US global commitments. That's not the same as the NATO "it depends". Him thinking NATO is taking advantage of the US is a different issue than him being wholly ignorant of the degree to which a US guarantee of peace works to stop old rivalries from flaring up. I believe that Trump is genuinely unaware that there is any kind of bad feeling between the nations of the far East and that he thinks US soldiers in Japan are defending Japan, rather than reassuring China. The US safeguards global peace and prosperity. Trump seems to assume that peace and prosperity are the default state and that the structures laid in place to build them can be removed with no costs. But that's no different to his assumptions that air is always breathable and that the EPA doesn't do anything. Basically, the entire "NATO and allies" issue is that Trump goes after the "our allies are taking advantage of us" when really the issue is "the US makes allies bear the brunt of the consequences for its own FP actions." The US keeps nuclear weapons and military bases in other countries to stop them from doing the same and the cost of that is smaller than the cost of every semi-capable country going its own way on FP, leading to more rivalries. Japan is the same. On October 11 2016 01:41 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 11 2016 00:45 LegalLord wrote:
Of all the people whose FP you could go out and endorse, Hillary Clinton is one of the worst. Cute but no. Most of the FP folks I talk with are perfectly happy supporting Clinton, moreso than Obama in fact, who has snubbed the community on occasion, particularly on Syria. Literally every FP expert finds Trump a dangerous lunatic. That Hillary Clinton is supported by the "FP folk" is something which I doubt less than I doubt the judgment of said FP folk. That Trump is probably worse is not hard to argue for - but it's worth looking at absolute evaluations of each candidate on FP, not just relative, and if you do that then Hillary Clinton will not look quite so good. How does the last part make sense? You have to decide which is better of two things. The relative difference shows one is better. What difference does the absolute value make? It makes the erroneous assumption that all that matters is this one election, this one four-year term, and that we shouldn't look to the longer term and discuss the negative consequences of what the "better choice" will lead to - and how we should look to prevent those when the chance arises. As I mentioned before, political movements are never about "this one election" but about long-term votes. But then that begs the question of "What else do we do?" You just said that you don't think Trump is better on FP, and I would be surprised if you said that Johnson or Stein are. So how do we vote for the long-term in this election?
That you think the point is about "just this election" rather than a general discussion is where you are mistaken here.
|
On October 11 2016 02:06 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 02:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 11 2016 02:03 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 02:00 Evotroid wrote:On October 11 2016 01:52 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:35 KwarK wrote:On October 11 2016 01:29 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:26 KwarK wrote:On October 11 2016 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 01:11 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
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. Yeah, that much I will agree with, in that those are pretty terrible blunders on his part. Probably in a more direct way than some of the others I've seen (stay in Iraq for 100 years) though I'm not convinced that they are more dangerous. I'll add "blanket denouncement of Muslims" to your list as well. Starting a nuclear rivalry between Japan and China, two nations which still have a lot of animosity towards each other which is repressed by American military suppression of Japan and business with China? Again, we don't occupy Japan because we think Japan is too weak to defend itself. We occupy Japan because A) Japan is a great power that awoke too late to play the great power game and was denied its destiny and is mad about it B) We know damn well Japan could fuck shit up in East Asia if it chose C) Everyone in East Asia would freak the fuck out if we didn't occupy Japan I feel that that falls quite well under the "NATO treaty" objection to Trump. I'm one of the last people who would advocate for any form of nuclear proliferation because the dangers of that are quite terribad. I don't see how. He wants to pull back from US global commitments. That's not the same as the NATO "it depends". Him thinking NATO is taking advantage of the US is a different issue than him being wholly ignorant of the degree to which a US guarantee of peace works to stop old rivalries from flaring up. I believe that Trump is genuinely unaware that there is any kind of bad feeling between the nations of the far East and that he thinks US soldiers in Japan are defending Japan, rather than reassuring China. The US safeguards global peace and prosperity. Trump seems to assume that peace and prosperity are the default state and that the structures laid in place to build them can be removed with no costs. But that's no different to his assumptions that air is always breathable and that the EPA doesn't do anything. Basically, the entire "NATO and allies" issue is that Trump goes after the "our allies are taking advantage of us" when really the issue is "the US makes allies bear the brunt of the consequences for its own FP actions." The US keeps nuclear weapons and military bases in other countries to stop them from doing the same and the cost of that is smaller than the cost of every semi-capable country going its own way on FP, leading to more rivalries. Japan is the same. On October 11 2016 01:41 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 11 2016 00:45 LegalLord wrote:
Of all the people whose FP you could go out and endorse, Hillary Clinton is one of the worst. Cute but no. Most of the FP folks I talk with are perfectly happy supporting Clinton, moreso than Obama in fact, who has snubbed the community on occasion, particularly on Syria. Literally every FP expert finds Trump a dangerous lunatic. That Hillary Clinton is supported by the "FP folk" is something which I doubt less than I doubt the judgment of said FP folk. That Trump is probably worse is not hard to argue for - but it's worth looking at absolute evaluations of each candidate on FP, not just relative, and if you do that then Hillary Clinton will not look quite so good. How does the last part make sense? You have to decide which is better of two things. The relative difference shows one is better. What difference does the absolute value make? It makes the erroneous assumption that all that matters is this one election, this one four-year term, and that we shouldn't look to the longer term and discuss the negative consequences of what the "better choice" will lead to - and how we should look to prevent those when the chance arises. As I mentioned before, political movements are never about "this one election" but about long-term votes. But then that begs the question of "What else do we do?" You just said that you don't think Trump is better on FP, and I would be surprised if you said that Johnson or Stein are. So how do we vote for the long-term in this election? That you think the point is about "just this election" rather than a general discussion is where you are mistaken here.
I mentioned maybe 4 or 5 posts above this that I know that the point isn't about "just this election".
That doesn't change my question. Do you think that Clinton is the best FP choice in this election for the long term?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
