|
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 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?
I think his point is to realize that Hillary is bad and that 4 years from now her position should not be seen as the new baseline.
To which I say. Lets see what dumb stuff she has done 4y from now before we judge her as-of-yet future administration.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 11 2016 02:02 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I'll await your response then, and hope that it is less of a non-statement than your current "she's good, her policies are good, Russia is terrible, believe me" flavor of responses that I've seen quite regularly from you.
|
Norway28675 Posts
On October 11 2016 02:02 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +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.
The libertarian debates were absolutely ridiculous. However, I have to say I think the fact that none of them have even the remotest chance at any degree of influence is probably a large part of why it was such a clown-show. In Norway, our small parties still have parliamentary representation. And then they can represent fairly fringe views - but the candidates representing those fringe views need to be taken seriously to have a chance to be elected, and the parties as well.
That said, as crazy as I thought their political beliefs were, I thought all the candidates were likable and or interesting. 
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 11 2016 02:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 02:06 LegalLord wrote: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:
[quote]
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?
Yeah, probably she is. That's not a real endorsement of her, but simply an acknowledgment that everyone else doesn't know what they're talking about with regards to FP and that while she will make things worse, everyone else will probably make things worse-er and as p6 says often, "we can survive another mediocre president." An effort to push candidates towards a better FP is a necessity though.
|
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.
it's not the libertarians fault that libertarianism doesn't have much to offer
|
I would prefer a slightly more nuanced Sanders approach on Middle Eastern policy to what Clinton is offering-it does really worry me the language that Clinton uses and the methods she and Obama have decided to pursue in the Middle East, bar the Iran deal, and where she breaks with Obama is the areas of his policy I like the most.
That said, pretty much everywhere else I think she'll just continue with de facto Obama FP which has been pretty successful in furthering U.S. interests and building soft power.
I mean, regardless of who gets elected President (Sanders, Chaffee, Rand Paul, my mom, Jesus) the Middle East is going to be a royal clusterfuck 4 years from now. Probably 30 years from now, too, if it even still exists. As long as she doesn't put boots on the ground to risk minimal American lives and doesn't boast about embiggening our military, I'll take what I can get.
|
On October 11 2016 02:13 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 02:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 11 2016 02:06 LegalLord wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Yeah, probably she is. That's not a real endorsement of her, but simply an acknowledgment that everyone else doesn't know what they're talking about with regards to FP and that while she will make things worse, everyone else will probably make things worse-er and as p6 says often, "we can survive another mediocre president." An effort to push candidates towards a better FP is a necessity though.
I agree 100% with the bold part, but what makes her potential foreign policy worse than Obama's? Isn't the common refrain that they're going to be very similar?
|
The main problem with our third parties is that they only make bids for the presidency in any serious fashion, in an effort to gain media attention. Which is fine, but they have no accomplishments to hang their hat on because they do not try for local elections. Their entire platform centers around not being one of the two major parties and that is why they receive coverage. It isn't' very compelling for most voters who are interested in how their problems will be addressed.
|
Norway28675 Posts
On October 11 2016 02:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 02:02 Lord Tolkien wrote: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. I'll await your response then, and hope that it is less of a non-statement than your current "she's good, her policies are good, Russia is terrible, believe me" flavor of responses that I've seen quite regularly from you.
This is completely disingenuous at best. There's hardly a poster on the very webpage who has a better ratio of long, thorough, well researched and argued posts to mediocre posts ratio than Lord Tolkien. Honestly pretty surprised to see this post of yours- it's a blatantly untrue representation of his posting habits.
|
Sanders, nuaced foreign policy, pick one
Edit: happy to undermine your post one level down, Liquid'Drone
|
Pope Francis has put his progressive stamp on the American Catholic church with the selection of three new like-minded cardinals – including one who has sparred with the Republican vice-presidential nominee, Mike Pence – in a clear rejection of bishops who have advocated for the church’s exclusion of divorced and LGBT Catholics.
The American choices were among 17 new cardinals named by Francis. He has chosen more from the developing world and only one from Italy, reflecting his desire to decentralise power away from the Vatican in Rome.
In choosing these new cardinals – the “princes of the church” who serve as the pope’s primary advisers – Francis has made it more likely that his successor will be a moderate or progressive. It also partially balances out the influence of the cardinals chosen by his far more conservative predecessors, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.
The choices could create a “seismic shift” in the Catholic hierarchy in the US, according to John Allen, a commentator from Crux, a Catholic news publication. While the selection of Joseph Tobin of Indianapolis, Kevin Farrell of Dallas and Blase Cupich of Chicago could not be considered liberal by conventional political standards, Allen wrote that each was considered to be part of the “centrist, non-cultural warrior wing of the country’s hierarchy”.
Of the three, Tobin was the surprise choice, in part because cardinals are usually chosen from the main centres of power in the biggest Catholic countries, and Indianapolis does not fit the bill. He has sought a greater voice for women in the church and was involved in a high-profile battle with Pence last year, after the Indiana governor – a former Catholic who converted to evangelical Protestantism – fought Tobin’s efforts to resettle Syrian refugees in the state, claiming they posed a security risk. The archbishop prevailed.
Cupich is also seen as an advocate for Francis’s agenda and has encouraged other archbishops to be a voice for workers and immigrants. Irish-born Farrell has been a vocal supporter of gun control laws.
Source
|
On October 11 2016 02:00 LegalLord wrote:
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.
Half of the world just fell of its chair. Israel has many enemies, thats literally never going to change but they havent been vulnerable since the US helped them hand all of the arabs their asses 40 years ago. Not sure how many vulnerable countries run open air prisons these days.
Both the Saudi's and Israel are toxic relationships. One sleep around and is ruining the entire world and you let them do it . The other one gets most of your attention and money but still whines everytime you admonish her or dont defend her when shes being a bitch to the person already living in the house you move her into.
|
I am always happy to see Lord Tolkien's contributions to the thread. I have limited knowledge of current FP theory and its nice to have someone take the time to break it down. It is far better than our normal output of hyperbolic shit posting and sometimes discussion about gerrymandering.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 11 2016 02:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 02:09 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 02:02 Lord Tolkien wrote: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. I'll await your response then, and hope that it is less of a non-statement than your current "she's good, her policies are good, Russia is terrible, believe me" flavor of responses that I've seen quite regularly from you. This is completely disingenuous at best. There's hardly a poster on the very webpage who has a better ratio of long, thorough, well researched and argued posts to mediocre posts ratio than Lord Tolkien. Honestly pretty surprised to see this post of yours- it's a blatantly untrue representation of his posting habits.
I'll admit I'm being a dick here. If we're assessing LT though, I will simply say that he posts good and well-researched posts, but also simultaneously reaches a lot with his conclusions, makes rather outrageous assertions, and has a tendency to be a total dick about anyone disagreeing with his (well-cited, but often questionably interpreted) point of view. As was discussed more than once, the fundamental assumptions behind your interpretation of non-trivial facts, along with the facts themselves, are important, and his assholish tendencies do him no favors with making some rather non-trivial assertions.
Really, it's tit-for-tat dickishness.
|
On October 11 2016 02:16 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Sanders, nuaced foreign policy, pick one
Edit: happy to undermine your post one level down, Liquid'Drone
Oh, did that post sound like I was saying Sanders had a nuanced policy? I meant I would like a policy similar to Sanders but more nuanced, sorry if that didn't come through.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 11 2016 02:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 02:13 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 02:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 11 2016 02:06 LegalLord wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Yeah, probably she is. That's not a real endorsement of her, but simply an acknowledgment that everyone else doesn't know what they're talking about with regards to FP and that while she will make things worse, everyone else will probably make things worse-er and as p6 says often, "we can survive another mediocre president." An effort to push candidates towards a better FP is a necessity though. I agree 100% with the bold part, but what makes her potential foreign policy worse than Obama's? Isn't the common refrain that they're going to be very similar?
Hillary is like... the bad part of Obama's foreign policy. All of the poorly planned interventionism, but less emphasis on his more idealistic ventures like ending the Cuba embargo. I would rate Obama's judgment more highly than hers.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 11 2016 02:20 Plansix wrote:
I am always happy to see Lord Tolkien's contributions to the thread. I have limited knowledge of current FP theory and its nice to have someone take the time to break it down. It is far better than our normal output of hyperbolic shit posting and sometimes discussion about gerrymandering.
I generally do appreciate his contributions - along with Kwark's, and in fact those of kwizach and other informative but blatantly biased posters - but at the same time it's perfectly valid to acknowledge that I am not necessarily fond of the messenger nor do I think that the knowledge they bring to the table is without its own set of biases. I especially think that their assholish demeanor is completely unwarranted more often than not.
Nor do I expect anyone to think that my posts are without their biases for that matter. But I will lash out if you overreach and decide to be an asshole about it.
|
On October 11 2016 02:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 02:16 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Sanders, nuaced foreign policy, pick one
Edit: happy to undermine your post one level down, Liquid'Drone Oh, did that post sound like I was saying Sanders had a nuanced policy? I meant I would like a policy similar to Sanders but more nuanced, sorry if that didn't come through.
Fair enough.
If I'm abrasive, its because I have to read shit like zeo trying to start a "Hillary supporters are trying to rig polls to make it look like Trump supporters rig polls in Trump's favor" conspiracy and resist my urge to strangle something. This thread is toxic and/or stupid far too often and why I take long breaks from it to regain my faith in humanity.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 11 2016 02:31 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 02:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 11 2016 02:16 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Sanders, nuaced foreign policy, pick one
Edit: happy to undermine your post one level down, Liquid'Drone Oh, did that post sound like I was saying Sanders had a nuanced policy? I meant I would like a policy similar to Sanders but more nuanced, sorry if that didn't come through. Fair enough. If I'm abrasive, its because I have to read shit like zeo trying to start a "Hillary supporters are trying to rig polls to make it look like Trump supporters rig polls in Trump's favor" conspiracy and resist my urge to strangle something. This thread is toxic and/or stupid far too often and why I take long breaks from it to regain my faith in humanity.
Meh, the only thing you can really do is to grow a thicker skin. If we all were triggered every time we heard something we think is stupidly wrong, we'd all go insane very quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
