Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Also is it not slightly odd that the Russian never released any RNC emails?
As for this. Number one would have stifflied ISIS sooner and thus have been wise, number two is only true because Obama dragged his feet and allowed Assad to create ISIS in Syria, as for her being worse than any Republicna. Remind me again when she knowingly advocated for a war purely for profit and for the people invaded to be stripped of their natural resources and made to pay the US for invading them?
edited 27th Dec '16 7:15:22 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranPeople keep saying she was hawkish, but never actually back that up with evidence. Like, evidence she wanted to get rid of Assad? Moreover, indication she thought that was a practical thing she could do?
In any case, wanting to hold Iran to their end of the deal is not hawkish, and she never threatened to hit anyone with nukes or questioned why we're not using them if we have them.
So yeah, your criticisms of her fall both flat and false.
I can confirm that she wants Assad gone, but that's not hawkish, it's just not isolationist like Obama has been at times.
Obama has at times been willing to let the world burn to avoid getting the US in a ground war, as the US has helped build (and at times start) many of the fires going on in the world I find it deeply saddening that he's been so willing to let others die so that the US doesn't have to get its hands dirty.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranSure but the US needs to work with said other actors to deal with the worlds problems, not run and hide and hope some other actors deals with the problems.
Honestly I'd never advocate for the US getting involved in a land action that it couldn't at least convince the French to back, I'd be much more comfortable if it involved NATO just the French but the rest of the EU, the Russian and several other global powers (personally I think the Indians could play a big role in the future). I'd settle for the US working with European allies and Global South allies, but the US still needs to be a part of it and not just walk away from all responsibility.
edited 27th Dec '16 7:26:47 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranIn light of the fact that when he came into the presidency people were very very jaded about the concept of sending our soldiers anywhere else to fight another war, I can understand how he came to many of his decisions. Part of his deal was promising to bring the soldiers home.
Also, it is literally impossible for any one country to solve all the world's problems. Which it what it often seemed to come down to, in the Middle East, with Europe appear to largely nope on out of that situation and our allies in the Middle East being very poorly equipped to help themselves.
edited 27th Dec '16 7:27:54 PM by AceofSpades
Most likely they're sitting on whatever they found, in case they ever need to apply a little extra "persuasion" to top Republicans.
In other words, more or less the entire GOP may well be compromised by a foreign power. I know this sounds like the plot of a bad Tom Clancy novel, but...well, so does everything about this election.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."![]()
I understand why he acted the way he did but it doesn't change the fact that he did. It makes sense but it was still wrong.
And again nobody is asking for the US to act alone, frankly I don't trust you or anyone else to act alone in the region, we need multi-national involvement and preferably the UN, but when the biggest players is unwilling to step up to the plate are you surprised that everyone else hopes out?
Hell he could have at least tried, I'd have great respect for Obama if he'd tried to put together multi-national peacekeeping forces, had everyone else walk away and then gone "look I'm sorry but I can't do this alone", but he never tried.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran- The DNC chair at the time, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, tried to pressure the media into giving Clinton only positive coverage, sometimes threatening to go over the heads of show hosts who criticized Clinton and talk their bosses into firing or more tightly controlling them (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/25/emails-show-debbie-wasserman-schultz-pressured-morning-joe-to-no-avail/?utm_term=.eee18d099aca)
- The DNC working with Clinton's campaign to help her win when it was supposed to be neutral and even discussing whether they could use Sanders possibly being an atheist to hurt his chances (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/24/here-are-the-latest-most-damaging-things-in-the-dncs-leaked-emails/?utm_term=.045d852c4da0)
- Clinton not only lied about her stance on TPP but admitted to having - to paraphrase her words - public positions that are different from her private positions. (http://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-emails-clinton-private-speech-trade-2016-10)
- Clinton privately admitted that a Syrian no-fly zone would kill lots of Syrian civilians, then she later supported a Syrian no-fly zone. (https://theintercept.com/2016/10/10/in-secret-goldman-sachs-speech-hillary-clinton-admitted-no-fly-zone-would-kill-a-lot-of-syrians/)
I never claimed Trump was a dove or a good guy in general. I simply asked why it's a bad thing that he's not aggressive toward Russia.
As I'll demonstrate in just a moment, the Syrian no-fly zone comments DO count.
What could words by the leader of ONE member do to undermine the entirety of NATO? What's to stop the organization from existing without us?
I didn't make this up: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-iran-sanctions_us_5728dc4ce4b096e9f08f46b3
Also, skip to 1:17 in this
video.
Except when she did indicate exactly that. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-syria-no-fly-zone-third-debate_us_58084280e4b0180a36e91a53)
Relevant quote from the article (emphasis mine): Clinton stuck to an argument she has made many times: Creating an area where Syrian and Russian planes cannot fly would give the U.S. “leverage” over Syria and Russia to negotiate a political resolution.
Now, how would she have enforced that no-fly zone in a way that Russia wouldn't consider an act of war?
Again, she said she would've sent troops back into Iraq sooner. She said in one of the presidential debates that what's in stake in Syria is "the global ambitions of Russia". She wants a no-fly zone in Syria which would likely lead to war with Russia and kept accusing them of being behind the e-mail leak without evidence. She also said she'd respond to cyber-security attacks with military force (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/1/clinton-us-will-treat-cyberattacks-just-any-other-/)
You know, it's amazing what you can find if you do a quick Google search instead of making assumptions.
What she did do was imply that we can't trust Iran to follow through on the deal even though they had already followed through on the deal. Why would she lie about that except to encourage further antagonism between the US and Iran?
Why is it that saying Trump was sometimes better than Clinton on one specific issue is always confused for an endorsement of anything else he said? Wanting to stay out of Syria is one issue where he's sometimes better than Clinton (and other times worse, what with saying we should kill ISIS member's families). Russia is one area where he's consistently better. On nearly any other issue he's either just as bad or - including in the case of nukes - worse.
edited 27th Dec '16 10:00:29 PM by SeriesOfNumbers
The US represents the vast majority of NATO spending (I'm seeing a claim for the US and Canada being 71%), the vast majority of NATO troops and the vast majority of NATO's nuclear weapons. NATO doesn't exist without the US because all NATO is without the US is the EU plus Canada and Turkey (and minus a few EU nations actually).
I can't watch the video but the article in no way indicates that Clinton was hawkish on Iran, less optimist that Obama sure, but she still called for the sanctions vote to be held off on (no anonymous sources claiming backroom deals don't count when she publically called for the extra sanctions to not be passed)
So unless your video has something critical in to I'm still seeing no evidence of Clinton being hawkish on Iran, less willing to negotiate than Obama but not being Obama does not instantly make one a hawk.
By agreeing it with the Russians, or by enforcing it on Assad and letting the Russian though. Also I note that your quoting the articles interpretiaton of what Clinton said and not what she actually said. Did she ever actually say that Russia would have the no-fly forced upon it?
Hell there's always the age old tactic of placing anti-air in the area and banking on the Russian not risking it, it's a bluff but it might well work, it's how the Russians have kept American planes out of most of Syria's airspace.
All of this ignores the fact that the US and Russian have in fact shot down each other's planes multiple times int eh past and not gone to war over it because they didn't want to. But I'm actually willing to ignore that, because even being willing to shoot down Russian planes would be exstream, if there was any evidence that Clinton would do that.
I'll have to check the responding to cyber attacks with military force thing but the rest of that isn't being Hawkish, it's taking a realistic view of foreign policy instead of the Obama "let the world burn as long as US troops get to stay home" approach.
Not being Obama does not instantly make one a hawk.
edited 27th Dec '16 8:41:14 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranNo, we have one count of Clinton admitting that she lies about her stances on the issues (true of most politicians, but we KNOW now that she's not an exception since she admitted it herself) one count of cheating at a primary by getting the aid of an institution that's supposed to be neutral, and one count of her adopting a position that she knows will kill civilians.
Also, though I forgot to mention it earlier, we learned from leaked Goldman Sachs speeches that she's in favor of people from the financial industry being in charge of regulations on the industry and that she thinks ethics regulations are a sign of "bias against people who' have lived successful and/or complicated lives".
edited 27th Dec '16 8:40:05 PM by SeriesOfNumbers
Expect Clinton specifically told the DNC to stop helping her, so any primary funny business is purely on DWS, as for adopting a position that she knows will kill civilians, that called having a foreign policy position. All foreign policy positions result in dead civilians, Clinton picked the one that would result in the least.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranYou mean to tell me that people who work in the industry might be the ones who know the system and how it works inside out might know a thing or two that keeps in check? Color me fucking shocked.
Everyone freaked out when Tom Wheeler was chosen for FEC director, but, shockingly, Obama vetted him to make sure he wasn't a sell out.
>.>
New Survey coming this weekend!Okay, point conceded on that one.
The article indicates that she tried to undermine the peace deal. How is that not hawkish?
The video indicated that she said she was "skeptical" about whether we could trust Iran to hold up its end of the deal even though Iran was already doing exactly that. Why would she lie about that if not to inflame tensions between the two countries? Remember, this is the same woman who called for war with Iran and to "obliterate" them eight years earlier:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTBdFccqDns
Resorting to violence first without trying to negotiate is a hawkish thing to do. Trying to undermine attempts at negotiation that are working is also a hawkish thing to do. Calling someone "naive" for wanting to negotiate - which is what she called Obama in 2008 for wanting to negotiate with Iran - is generally a hawkish thing to do.
So when people ask her if she'd shoot down a Russian plane if they violate the no-fly zone, why doesn't she just say "I'd be trying to get Russia to help us enforce the no-fly zone"? Instead, she avoids answering the question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDkJY_xkVFs
Well, what you call realistic, I consider hawkish. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. It seems to me that America's supposed attempts at putting out the world's fires (I say "supposed" because I don't think that's what America's interventions are usually about at all) usually make the fires worse, instead. Attempting to fight fire with more fire strikes me as a pretty hawkish thing to do. I think Clinton didn't learn the lessons of Iraq and would've repeated that same foreign policy blunder over and over again.
If her current position is the one that would result in the least casualties, then why did she previously have one that would've resulted in more casualties? And if she cares about limiting civilian casualties, why does she support arming Saudi Arabia
which uses the weapons to kill civilians in Yemen?
And you don't think there might be a conflict of interest with people being in charge of policing their former colleagues or people like their former colleagues? Besides, she was giving this speech to an institution that payed her to give it. Why should we believe she wouldn't have picked the people that financial institutions who payed her wanted her to pick, meaning people unlikely to regulate them much? This is no different from Trump's business ties to Russia, and the likely result would've been no different from Trump picking one of Putin's former friends or employees to head a US task force on stopping corrupt behavior from Russia.
Why is Obama's word good enough for you? Given how much money banks donated to his campaign and the fact that no one was prosecuted for the fraud that lead to the Great Recession, Obama himself is a sell out.
edited 27th Dec '16 9:58:32 PM by SeriesOfNumbers
I think, at this point, it pays to remember that this started as a thing about Assange. You really haven't cited anything anywhere near bad enough to make up for the way he's acting as a Russian propagandist who's noticeably avoiding saying anything bad about Trump or the GOP/RNC. And that's without touching the way he made it obvious he had a vendetta against the only non-Trump person who could've won the election.
edited 27th Dec '16 9:23:29 PM by Gilphon
What did I say was going to happen the moment he hit "post", exactly?
In Which We Learn More About The Naked Cowboy Than We Wanted To Know
.
I know the sort of people who would try to use deportation as "motivation" for obedience. Nothing good ever comes of them.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot@164.422
There's not even evidence we've been told of that it was Russia who released the DNC e-mails. If you mean it's odd that Wikileaks didn't, why are you assuming they had access to RNC e-mails? Maybe the RNC just has better security than the DNC.
Well, first off, all Assange did was release info that Americans should've been allowed to know anyway. If Trump was careful enough to keep documents proving his corruption better guarded or Assange couldn't find them, that's not Assange's fault. Also, the only evidence we have of Russia being involved in the leak is the CIA saying so. Given that the CIA has a history of secretly toppling foreign governments and even admitted to having tortured people - 20% of whom turned out to be innocent - they're not really a trustworthy source.
More importantly, though, we need to separate what's in the documents from the person who released them. If the leaked e-mails are authentic - and the DNC and Clinton campaign seem to admit that they were - then the actions the DNC and Clinton discussed taking in those e-mails need to be evaluated on their own merits. I would evaluate the contents of the leaked documents the same whether the person who leaked them was Ghandi or Hitler, just as long as the documents were real.
If a murderer donated some of his own money to charity, or if a donation were made solely so the person donating could look good to other people, would that mean that donating to charity is wrong? Should we start wishing that the charity had less money and wasn't able to help as many people? Of course not. Actions can be good or bad independently of whether the person who did them is otherwise a good or bad person, and the release of those e-mails and Goldmen Sachs speeches was a positive thing even if (and this is still an if) they were released by a Russian puppet who only wanted to help Trump win. I believe in transparency even when it leads to an election not going the way I wanted it to.
edited 27th Dec '16 10:05:10 PM by SeriesOfNumbers
Oh, c'mon. Documents proving Trump's corruption weren't guarded at all. His corruption was very open. And also some damaging stuff on Trump was released by hackers, like that tax return that showed he could've avoided paying income tax for 20 years. Just not by Assange. For some mysterious reason that obviously has nothing to do with the vendetta against Hilary he's never made a secret of having.
And it's not just 'the CIA says so', for the record, it's 'literally every intelligence agency; so everyone who could conceivably be considered an authority on such things, as well as some reporters'. (They've also said that the RNC was hacked, so it's definitely not a case of them just having better security) If that's not a trustworthy source on that, there literally does not exist a trustworthy source. Which is not a possibility I'm ruling out, for the record, but if we're entering 'let's not trust what literally anyone says' territory, then I'll have to ask for evidence Assange didn't make up the contents of those emails wholesale.
You're not getting transparency, is what I'm saying. If you have all the dirt on one side but none of the other, you're getting a half picture- and a very misleading half picture at that. Selective opaqueness is the opposite of transparency.
edited 27th Dec '16 10:06:43 PM by Gilphon
When someone is targeting a specific person or group, it's perfectly logical to examine that person for any kind of a bias or motive in what they're doing. Assange performed a specific action, and it is impossible to separate him from what he did. Also, a lot of what was in those documents he originally released were basically a whole bunch of boring, workaday bullshit that happens in politics. In many cases, petting gossip that occurs everywhere?? And some of that info put people in danger, I believe.
Same thing for all those DNC documents; boring bullshit that muddies the waters and just becomes grist for the scandal mill.
Also, it wasn't just the CIA that came to that conclusion in the end: The FBI totally fucked up properly warning the DNC about a Russian hacking, for months. But they were fucking aware of it. Sixteen intelligence agencies in all reported the belief that Russia was deliberally fucking with the US elections. It's very rare to get that level of agreement among several organizations that frequently compete over jurisdiction.
Also also, that is a shitty comparison you used.
Also also also, how do you not realize that a foreign country fucking around in our elections is a fucking terrible thing? It's terrible when we do it, it's terrible when anyone does it, and it's terrible for our future to be in the hands of an authoritarian country because that is one of the most basic subversions of democracy in the world. Our concern is a bit more than "the election didn't go the way we wanted it to."

Here's a question: what corruption, exactly, was revealed in the leaked emails? Because that's not a thing you've mentioned at all- what was revealed that you found damning.