|
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 November 09 2016 08:15 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 08:01 LegalLord wrote:On November 09 2016 07:58 Nevuk wrote:On November 09 2016 07:54 LegalLord wrote:On November 09 2016 07:51 Nevuk wrote:On November 09 2016 07:50 oneofthem wrote:On November 09 2016 07:47 Jormundr wrote:On November 09 2016 07:45 oneofthem wrote:
obama has a lot of work to do with that 'trust in government' project.
it's absolutely hilarious how the far left don't dare to bash obama even on his signature issues, but readily indulge in character assassination vs HRC even using issues where she is nominally on her side.
can't win You have a HRC victim complex the size of DJ Trump's NPD. it is true though. leftists understand that obama is too popular to win, so they tackle the issues. hillary? can get trashed. It's probably best understood via the lens that there's more social stigma attached to being a racist than there is to being a sexist. It's probably best understood via the lens that Obama is the better candidate and while we have issues with him, overall he appears to be better as a president than we believe Hillary will be. In 2008? The rhetoric was clearly more extreme from one side than the other at the time. Now that's certainly the case, but a lot of the anti-Clinton arguments from the left have their roots in the 2008 primaries still. The Bernie bros etc. were pretty much made up or vastly over-inflated in the press, though. Could be the (justified) perception of dishonesty, the FBI investigations, the warhawking, the perceived collusion with the DNC to win the primaries, or the history of flip-flopping. Or it could just be that racism is worse than sexism. Your call. let's be honest here, leftists dislike hillary for substantive political reasons, not engaging in political tactics or being a woman. disaggregating hillary's disapproval between primary hillary vs primary sanders voters, she has a near 100% approval for the former group, but the latter group is far more vulnerable to character related charges. the reason being, it is easier to believe in character negatives for someone seen as not in your ideological group.
because the hillary supporters dont view sanders as someone outside their ideological group? dont make me laugh.
btw, she is not a warhawk, but more of a moralistic foreign policy person with a bit too much trust of the military brass's understanding of military power. between foreign policy nihilism and recognition of democratic values, the world needs the latter at this particular point. whehter she can execute the long plan is another matter, but she's got the right people to influence her in that direction.
calling her a warhawk is obvious polemical, but to describe the disasters in libya, jemen, honduras as "moralistic foreign policy" is a new low, even for you
User was warned for this post
|
On November 09 2016 08:40 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +Some 15 percent of Americans who cast a ballot on Tuesday said it was their first time voting in a presidential election, according to an early reading from the Reuters/Ipsos national Election Day poll, up from 9 percent of voters who said so in 2012.
The poll of nearly 35,000 people also showed that 13 percent of voters had waited until the final week of the presidential race to make up their mind between the candidates, who include Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump, up from 9 percent who said so in 2012.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation announced in late October that it was looking at more emails connected to its investigation of Clinton’s use of a personal email server while secretary of state. FBI Director James Comey later said that the new trove of emails did not affect his earlier decision to not bring a criminal case against Clinton. SourceShow nested quote +On November 09 2016 08:38 Toadesstern wrote:On November 09 2016 08:36 Probe1 wrote:On November 09 2016 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
I know it's just the first 1%'s coming in but seeing Trump leading in all of these early results is surreal. They're states Republicans would even win if the anti-christ was on the ballot. It's a little jarring yeah but 4000 people and it's freaking Kentucky. The only Democrats they've voted for in a long long time have been southern boys themselves. technically speaking New Hampshire is at 32 votes Trump, 25 votes Clinton atm according to NYT 1% reporting (3 of 300 precincts) Oh you.
I can only assume that was what GH was talking about though 
|
On November 09 2016 08:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 08:38 LegalLord wrote:On November 09 2016 08:36 oneofthem wrote:On November 09 2016 08:34 LegalLord wrote:On November 09 2016 08:15 oneofthem wrote:
she is not a warhawk, but more of a moralistic foreign policy person with a bit too much trust of the military brass's understanding of military power. between foreign policy nihilism and recognition of democratic values, the world needs the latter at this particular point. whehter she can execute the long plan is another matter, but she's got the right people to influence her in that direction.
She isn't a warhawk of the John Rambo McCain variety, in that she doesn't seek to start every war that the country could feasibly start. She is clearly biased towards aggression, which is status quo for the US but a bad status quo that is proving to be increasingly unsuitable for the modern era. And she doesn't have any particularly good judgment, and she takes the approach of regressing towards the "generic American position" on those issues - perhaps, as you say, those advocated by the military brass. Which isn't the worst possible option but it's misguided for a wide range of reasons and in need of someone who will push towards a more sane policy even in the face of opposition. Obama deserves credit for being reasonable on that front but he is decidedly not a FP person. I'd want a more FP-minded Obama in charge on the FP front. she's changed a bit on this issue of military power's limits. elevating people like mike mullen etc would be good. people can learn from history, and she has. This is a somewhat generic assertion and I'd like to hear more about which issues she has shown that she has learned from. She favoured intervention in Iraq in 2003 and diplomacy in Iran in 2013.
Then again, you could look at Libya and Syria to find further support for interventionism. Seems like the only lesson she may have learned is to avoid the "nation building" experiment. Which makes intervention less costly but certainly no less unsuccessful.
And if you favored intervention in Iran you would be more than foolish to do so. It's too big and strong to invade without paying the cost.
|
On November 09 2016 08:36 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
I know it's just the first 1%'s coming in but seeing Trump leading in all of these early results is surreal. They're states Republicans would even win if the anti-christ was on the ballot. It's a little jarring yeah but 4000 people and it's freaking Kentucky. The only Democrats they've voted for in a long long time have been southern boys themselves.
Hm? KY is a weird state. Fiscally liberal, socially conservative. It went for Clinton in 92+ 96 and is actually very democratic leaning below the federal level (It's like the only southern state that still has democrats in control of the state house). It actually has the county with the longest streak of voting democratic in the country (since like 1830 or something absurd).
Hillary is in trouble in KY for her coal miners going out of business comment, but it'll probably be closer than 2008/2012 were (there was pretty obvious racism against Obama). There were some google consumer surveys that did show her winning in KY, but those were some serious outliers. It'll probably be like 10% or something, but KY isn't like Montana or Utah (in normal years).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 09 2016 08:38 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 08:36 oneofthem wrote:On November 09 2016 08:34 LegalLord wrote:On November 09 2016 08:15 oneofthem wrote:
she is not a warhawk, but more of a moralistic foreign policy person with a bit too much trust of the military brass's understanding of military power. between foreign policy nihilism and recognition of democratic values, the world needs the latter at this particular point. whehter she can execute the long plan is another matter, but she's got the right people to influence her in that direction.
She isn't a warhawk of the John Rambo McCain variety, in that she doesn't seek to start every war that the country could feasibly start. She is clearly biased towards aggression, which is status quo for the US but a bad status quo that is proving to be increasingly unsuitable for the modern era. And she doesn't have any particularly good judgment, and she takes the approach of regressing towards the "generic American position" on those issues - perhaps, as you say, those advocated by the military brass. Which isn't the worst possible option but it's misguided for a wide range of reasons and in need of someone who will push towards a more sane policy even in the face of opposition. Obama deserves credit for being reasonable on that front but he is decidedly not a FP person. I'd want a more FP-minded Obama in charge on the FP front. she's changed a bit on this issue of military power's limits. elevating people like mike mullen etc would be good. people can learn from history, and she has. This is a somewhat generic assertion and I'd like to hear more about which issues she has shown that she has learned from.
qualifier here is that a lot of campaign rhetoric has to be discounted because she is trying to draw contrast and whatnot. also, real boost of defensivei posture is necessary given real aggressions from russia/china.
beyond that it would be instructive to look at personnel decisions, particularly personnel decisions relating to people who were on the conservative side in past decisions opposing her.
in particular look at the development and governance focused group. she talked a lot about this development strategy early on in his career as SoS, but did not really put it into practice. if she picks the mullens rather than guys like john allen, this would be sign of de-militarization.
there is also the general direction of the policy community consensus. rosa brooks etc.
|
i have early exit polling numbers from a, err, source. trump narrowly ahead in GA, AZ, IA. winning UT and tied in OH.
for senate all are close, except AZ which mccain is winning by double digits. theyre winning IN and FL narrowly, rest have dem narrowly ahead.
|
United States44286 Posts
On November 09 2016 08:42 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 08:39 KwarK wrote:On November 09 2016 08:38 LegalLord wrote:On November 09 2016 08:36 oneofthem wrote:On November 09 2016 08:34 LegalLord wrote:On November 09 2016 08:15 oneofthem wrote:
she is not a warhawk, but more of a moralistic foreign policy person with a bit too much trust of the military brass's understanding of military power. between foreign policy nihilism and recognition of democratic values, the world needs the latter at this particular point. whehter she can execute the long plan is another matter, but she's got the right people to influence her in that direction.
She isn't a warhawk of the John Rambo McCain variety, in that she doesn't seek to start every war that the country could feasibly start. She is clearly biased towards aggression, which is status quo for the US but a bad status quo that is proving to be increasingly unsuitable for the modern era. And she doesn't have any particularly good judgment, and she takes the approach of regressing towards the "generic American position" on those issues - perhaps, as you say, those advocated by the military brass. Which isn't the worst possible option but it's misguided for a wide range of reasons and in need of someone who will push towards a more sane policy even in the face of opposition. Obama deserves credit for being reasonable on that front but he is decidedly not a FP person. I'd want a more FP-minded Obama in charge on the FP front. she's changed a bit on this issue of military power's limits. elevating people like mike mullen etc would be good. people can learn from history, and she has. This is a somewhat generic assertion and I'd like to hear more about which issues she has shown that she has learned from. She favoured intervention in Iraq in 2003 and diplomacy in Iran in 2013. Then again, you could look at Libya and Syria to find further support for interventionism. Seems like the only lesson she may have learned is to avoid the "nation building" experiment. Which makes intervention less costly but certainly no less unsuccessful.
I don't know that we can pin the Arab Spring on Clinton. I also don't know that Libya is an American adventure, not when the Anglo French forces spearheaded the intervention. But if we are attributing the entire Arab Spring, and all outcomes that come from it, to Clinton then I must remind you that the majority of Arab states actually survived the Arab Spring. It's only if you follow an assumption of "if it failed, Hillary did it, if it succeeded, it succeeded in spite of Hillary" that you conclude she's the issue.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 09 2016 08:41 Paljas wrote: but to describe the disasters in libya, jemen, honduras as "moralistic foreign policy" is a new low, even for you
american foreign policy is about hypocrisy, which requires at least a moral pretense. in hrc's case that pretense is underlain by real commitment to a vision for the world.
on yemen we are not going to throw KSA into a ditch for yemen. it's just not going to happen, hence hypocrisy. but the moral values thing is there too, and it's genuine.
i don't think she quite sees the kind of strategy that would be necessary to fight the conflcit that matters to me (liberal democracies as a system vs authoritarian state capitalism as system) , but she would certainly make constraining kleptocracies a central part of her foreign policy. this is why rus/china is really opposed to her, she understands the two level agency involved in their systems.
|
|
|
On November 09 2016 08:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 08:42 LegalLord wrote:On November 09 2016 08:39 KwarK wrote:On November 09 2016 08:38 LegalLord wrote:On November 09 2016 08:36 oneofthem wrote:On November 09 2016 08:34 LegalLord wrote:On November 09 2016 08:15 oneofthem wrote:
she is not a warhawk, but more of a moralistic foreign policy person with a bit too much trust of the military brass's understanding of military power. between foreign policy nihilism and recognition of democratic values, the world needs the latter at this particular point. whehter she can execute the long plan is another matter, but she's got the right people to influence her in that direction.
She isn't a warhawk of the John Rambo McCain variety, in that she doesn't seek to start every war that the country could feasibly start. She is clearly biased towards aggression, which is status quo for the US but a bad status quo that is proving to be increasingly unsuitable for the modern era. And she doesn't have any particularly good judgment, and she takes the approach of regressing towards the "generic American position" on those issues - perhaps, as you say, those advocated by the military brass. Which isn't the worst possible option but it's misguided for a wide range of reasons and in need of someone who will push towards a more sane policy even in the face of opposition. Obama deserves credit for being reasonable on that front but he is decidedly not a FP person. I'd want a more FP-minded Obama in charge on the FP front. she's changed a bit on this issue of military power's limits. elevating people like mike mullen etc would be good. people can learn from history, and she has. This is a somewhat generic assertion and I'd like to hear more about which issues she has shown that she has learned from. She favoured intervention in Iraq in 2003 and diplomacy in Iran in 2013. Then again, you could look at Libya and Syria to find further support for interventionism. Seems like the only lesson she may have learned is to avoid the "nation building" experiment. Which makes intervention less costly but certainly no less unsuccessful. I don't know that we can pin the Arab Spring on Clinton. I also don't know that Libya is an American adventure, not when the Anglo French forces spearheaded the intervention. But if we are attributing the entire Arab Spring, and all outcomes that come from it, to Clinton then I must remind you that the majority of Arab states actually survived the Arab Spring. It's only if you follow an assumption of "if it failed, Hillary did it, if it succeeded, it succeeded in spite of Hillary" that you conclude she's the issue.
Meh, that's all in all far too charitable an interpretation of her FP merits and demerits, but I'm just not in the mood right now. Too much work to do and I'm on mobile. Maybe I'll add it to my backlog of long posts to make.
Speaking of Hillary's record, I remember LT saying that he planned to write an essay glorifying her record. It's too bad that that has yet to be released since I really was curious what he would come up with.
|
Shooting at California apparently. wtf is up with people.
|
On November 09 2016 08:42 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 08:36 Probe1 wrote:On November 09 2016 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
I know it's just the first 1%'s coming in but seeing Trump leading in all of these early results is surreal. They're states Republicans would even win if the anti-christ was on the ballot. It's a little jarring yeah but 4000 people and it's freaking Kentucky. The only Democrats they've voted for in a long long time have been southern boys themselves. Hm? KY is a weird state. Fiscally liberal, socially conservative. It went for Clinton in 92+ 96 and is actually very democratic leaning below the federal level (It's like the only southern state that still has democrats in control of the state house). It actually has the county with the longest streak of voting democratic in the country (since like 1830 or something absurd). Hillary is in trouble in KY for her coal miners going out of business comment, but it'll probably be closer than 2008/2012 were (there was pretty obvious racism against Obama). There were some google consumer surveys that did show her winning in KY, but those were some serious outliers. It'll probably be like 10% or something, but KY isn't like Montana or Utah (in normal years).
Have you visited it? I've never been to a place in KY that isn't deeply, deeply conservative to the point of being regressive.
It changes over time but man, that place is red.
|
On November 09 2016 08:50 Luolis wrote:
Shooting at California apparently. wtf is up with people.
There's nearly 8 times more Californians than Finns. Something bad happening in a place with more people than Australia isn't surprising given the scale.
|
On November 09 2016 08:52 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 08:50 Luolis wrote:
Shooting at California apparently. wtf is up with people. There's nearly 8 times more Californians than Finns. Something bad happening in a place with more people than Australia isn't surprising given the scale.
Fixed what i said, was a poor choice of words.
|
On November 09 2016 08:51 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 08:42 Nevuk wrote:On November 09 2016 08:36 Probe1 wrote:On November 09 2016 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
I know it's just the first 1%'s coming in but seeing Trump leading in all of these early results is surreal. They're states Republicans would even win if the anti-christ was on the ballot. It's a little jarring yeah but 4000 people and it's freaking Kentucky. The only Democrats they've voted for in a long long time have been southern boys themselves. Hm? KY is a weird state. Fiscally liberal, socially conservative. It went for Clinton in 92+ 96 and is actually very democratic leaning below the federal level (It's like the only southern state that still has democrats in control of the state house). It actually has the county with the longest streak of voting democratic in the country (since like 1830 or something absurd). Hillary is in trouble in KY for her coal miners going out of business comment, but it'll probably be closer than 2008/2012 were (there was pretty obvious racism against Obama). There were some google consumer surveys that did show her winning in KY, but those were some serious outliers. It'll probably be like 10% or something, but KY isn't like Montana or Utah (in normal years). Have you visited it? I've never been to a place in KY that isn't deeply, deeply conservative to the point of being regressive. It changes over time but man, that place is red.
In addition, the reason they refer to rural Pennsylvania as Pennsyltucky is NOT because of Kentucky's fiscal liberalness.
|
|
|
On November 09 2016 08:44 ticklishmusic wrote:
i have early exit polling numbers from a, err, source. trump narrowly ahead in GA, AZ, IA. winning UT and tied in OH.
for senate all are close, except AZ which mccain is winning by double digits. theyre winning IN and FL narrowly, rest have dem narrowly ahead.
Rand is going to crush his opponent by at least 25% so I'm not sure where you're getting that that race is going to be close...
|
what is this 'vote and then MAGA' on the_donald? what does MAGA mean?
|
Go go Tump! Meme magic will prevail!
User was warned for this post
|
On November 09 2016 08:51 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 08:42 Nevuk wrote:On November 09 2016 08:36 Probe1 wrote:On November 09 2016 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
I know it's just the first 1%'s coming in but seeing Trump leading in all of these early results is surreal. They're states Republicans would even win if the anti-christ was on the ballot. It's a little jarring yeah but 4000 people and it's freaking Kentucky. The only Democrats they've voted for in a long long time have been southern boys themselves. Hm? KY is a weird state. Fiscally liberal, socially conservative. It went for Clinton in 92+ 96 and is actually very democratic leaning below the federal level (It's like the only southern state that still has democrats in control of the state house). It actually has the county with the longest streak of voting democratic in the country (since like 1830 or something absurd). Hillary is in trouble in KY for her coal miners going out of business comment, but it'll probably be closer than 2008/2012 were (there was pretty obvious racism against Obama). There were some google consumer surveys that did show her winning in KY, but those were some serious outliers. It'll probably be like 10% or something, but KY isn't like Montana or Utah (in normal years). Have you visited it? I've never been to a place in KY that isn't deeply, deeply conservative to the point of being regressive. It changes over time but man, that place is red.
I've lived there almost all my life, and my mother is from Eastern KY. It's a very hard place to pin down. Like all states the cities are heavily democratic, though Lexington to a lesser degree than Louisville. Lexington is basically where you want to go if you're religious but still gay (very high gay population, but extremely religious).
It's conservative, not red. Basically there are still "blue-dog" democrats here, even though they've died out almost everywhere else. It's why Bill Clinton won it pretty easily be tossing some conservative talking points and seeming southern in the 90s. Eastern KY is so hard to get a handle on for most people because it's like traveling back in time about 90 years. Like, cable etc. isn't available for many of the most rural and mountainous areas, so there's no acceleration of ideology due to Fox News. Even talk radio is hard to get in the eastern parts of the state, so it is mostly just seeping through from conversations.
Basically : the western part is insanely red, the central part is mildly blue, the eastern part is confused (leans red nationally, blue locally).
On November 09 2016 08:53 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 08:51 Probe1 wrote:On November 09 2016 08:42 Nevuk wrote:On November 09 2016 08:36 Probe1 wrote:On November 09 2016 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
I know it's just the first 1%'s coming in but seeing Trump leading in all of these early results is surreal. They're states Republicans would even win if the anti-christ was on the ballot. It's a little jarring yeah but 4000 people and it's freaking Kentucky. The only Democrats they've voted for in a long long time have been southern boys themselves. Hm? KY is a weird state. Fiscally liberal, socially conservative. It went for Clinton in 92+ 96 and is actually very democratic leaning below the federal level (It's like the only southern state that still has democrats in control of the state house). It actually has the county with the longest streak of voting democratic in the country (since like 1830 or something absurd). Hillary is in trouble in KY for her coal miners going out of business comment, but it'll probably be closer than 2008/2012 were (there was pretty obvious racism against Obama). There were some google consumer surveys that did show her winning in KY, but those were some serious outliers. It'll probably be like 10% or something, but KY isn't like Montana or Utah (in normal years). Have you visited it? I've never been to a place in KY that isn't deeply, deeply conservative to the point of being regressive. It changes over time but man, that place is red. In addition, the reason they refer to rural Pennsylvania as Pennsyltucky is NOT because of Kentucky's fiscal liberalness.
KY is fiscally liberal but hates admitting it. They're very much in favor of subsidies for horse farming, farmers, and coal miners.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
