American Politics the 2016 edition

JJLehto wrote: Excellent point Pat. Her hawkishness really is a major concern, and it's something (along with her role in our current mess) that so many sincere, well intentioned liberals look right past. Hell they dont even look at it. One thing I did give credit to Obama for: I believe he was making the first step in a change in foreign policy. I mean the very first step...aint easy to reverse decades of momentum, not to mention the vested interests and etc But Clinton, I fully believe will be busy as usual in regards to foreign policy.  I am actually OK with drones. I understand the issues, but way I see it...it's better than invasion of the whole country. Thing is, she may actually do that. Afghanistan has been left open ended, Syria isn't going away, heck I've read the # of troops in Iraq is starting to creep up. This is not being snarky, just a reality based observation: I don't see any reason to think she won't start a legitimate war, nor do I see a reason to believe she won't be a hawk.

I could be okay with drones if some reasonable checks were put on their use. The problem with the technology is that it won't be and isn't used in lieu of a ground invasion. It's used in situations where ground forces aren't an option most of the time. It's an extension warfare that minimizes American combat causalities at the expense of massive civilian ones, which is terrible. It's not just her support of it as a policy. It's her continued refusal to listen to CIA intelligence recommending against drone strikes. I can't remember the number, but I think under her the state department cancelled drone strikes based on intelligence in the single digits percentage wise. That's a troubling thing.

Yes Iraq troop numbers have been increasing. Afghanistan has been going to hell so I imagine a surge there will happen in the future. We already have operatives on the ground in Syria despite her repeating the opposite and trying to maintain integrity through rhetorical games. She's been a proponent of doing more there and I must assume that will only escalate after she's elected to be damned with it does with our Russia relationship.

It's really a shame. We'd probably have incredibly low voter turnout for this election, but it's going to be ruined because the republicans had to put up a sycophant rather than a merely bad candidate so that people are prodded into defensive votes out of sheer terror.

I have to say my concerns for foreign policy are never in the same level as my concerns for public policy inside the US (which I know are affected by the former). That's one reason why I probably am and have been much more in HRC's camp than other more reluctant voters in this side of things... 

Absolutely, and I recognize my approach is somewhat narrow and my view, extended to millions of people, allows for all the idiocy and interventionism and death and abuse and etc of our foreign policy. But I can't lie, that takes a back seat when I'm confronted with alternatives that in domestic policy mean more religion, more restrictions to personal freedom, less help for those who need it, less health care, etc. 

Oh I never thought you did. But it's a valid criticism of my views. In the end foreign policy and entanglements not only cost lives but also tons of money and resources. However, much as I would like a more isolationist approach, what happens here with regards to civil rights, economy, religion, etc, make me put it in second place. 

http://fortune.com/2016/10/10/presidential-debate-donald-trump-warren-buffett/?xid=for_fb_sh

The Dark Elf wrote:  Trump just makes sh*t up.

Really? How long has this been going on?

Equality 7-2521 wrote: JJLehto wrote: Well, sad it took this long, and frankly I'm not sure why all of Trump's horrid comments previously weren't enough to convince people BUT seems finally sanity is coming back.  The Republican Party seems to basically be abandoning Trump entirely...which honestly makes sense. They can take the loss. They'll keep obstructing Congress and giving Clinton a fit over every time she blinks, much like they've done for the last 6 years. They can start focusing on 2020, where several people are already positioning themselves.  Scott Walker will deff be an early favorite. So we can be reminded that the Republican mainstream...is still absolutely insane.  Withdrawing support now is too hollow. Easy to do so when the guy has lost the election essentially. They shouldn't get off the hook from the public. It's a disgrace of a political party that they didn't put an end to this in the primaries. They were totally outplayed by the DNC before they even got out of their own backyard.

It looks as if it's fairly safe to assume that Donald Trump is safely out of the way, which, of course, leaves an almost equaly-sized problem: Hillary Clinton as president.
From her past track record, one of her first actions in office will probably be to legalize corrruption before moving on to less important things such as stability in the Middle East etc. How on earth is the world going to deal with that?

Equality 7-2521 wrote: My problem with that is twofold. One being that domestic policy considerations are fairly well checked by factors other than who is president at the time. Foreign policy is very unilaterally the executive branch. The other being that foreign policy decisions mean life or death, normalcy or displacement, for those outside the US. Domestic policy less frequently has stakes so high.

Edited by JJLehto - October 13 2016 at 07:11

^ I agree with T above.......the idea that she is anymore corrupt than all the politicians in Washington or Trump for that matter is ridiculous. Does anyone in their right mind actually think he manged to get where he's at with out making some questionable  deals and possibly some illegal ones?

Edited by dr wu23 - October 13 2016 at 11:46