The Hillary Clinton thread

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 2:22 am

Trump is like the high school football coach who is going to make the best calls and train the best pass rushers.

Except Trump doesn't even have experience coaching flag football. He's the asshole sponsor who gets his name on the jerseys and heckles from the sidelines...and tries to sleep with all the cheerleaders.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 7:19 am

The six candidates Hillary didn't want to face.

1. Jeb Bush.
First, the memo listed former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, the "establishment" candidate. "What to undermine: the notion he is a 'moderate' or concerned about regular Americans; perceived inroads with the Latino population." Bush was seen as a threat because he might follow his brother's "compassionate conservatism" and chip away at the Democrat lead among Latinos.

2. Marco Rubio.
Florida Senator Marco Rubio was also seen as a threat to the Democrat lock on this particular minority group. "What to undermine: the idea he has 'fresh' ideas; his perceived appeal to Latinos." Rubio's optimistic style and his Cuban heritage were seen as a threat to the eventual Democrat nominee — and rightly so.

3. Scott Walker.
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker also made the list, due to "the idea he can rally working- and middle class Americans." Walker's folksy style and impressive economic record in the Badger State would have made him a key threat in November — had his campaign been better organized and had Donald Trump not been able to eviscerate him in the first few debates.

4. Rand Paul.
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul proved less than inspiring during the primary process, but Democrats had great reasons to fear him. The Clinton campaign explained that Democrats needed to undermine "the idea he is a 'different' kind of Republican; his stance on the military and his appeal to millennials and communities of color."

He had the right outreach and the right policy mix to drive a tremendous wedge into the Democratic coalition. Unfortunately, he lacked the fire in the belly that enabled his father (Ron Paul) to so inspire young people in 2012. That same passion boosted Ted Cruz to overshadow the younger Paul among more libertarian-minded Republicans. Rand is the true surprise on this list — but his outreach to young people and black people could have been truly pivotal this year, and provide key lessons for 2020.

5. Bobby Jindal.
Former Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal was already unpopular in his home state as the 2016 race began, but Republicans did indeed see him as a promising candidate. The Clinton memo only listed "his 'new' ideas" as a key asset to undermine, but a key undercurrent in mentioning his name is the fact that Jindal has Indian heritage, and would constitute living proof against the Democrats' favorite argument — that Republicans are racist against all "people of color."

Jindal can be an inspiring speaker, but he suffered greatly by being relegated to the "undercard" debates. In such a star-studded field, Jindal struggled to emerge, partly because of his less-than-stellar record on Louisiana's economy.

6. Chris Christie.
It may be hard to imagine, after New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's humiliating endorsement of Donald Trump, but this man was seen as a legitimate threat by the Hillary campaign. Christie's one asset, "he tells it like it is," has been widely considered a Trump selling point against political correctness. This is a key selling point, when contrasted with Clinton's notorious lies and duplicity.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/10/11 ... r-boots/3/

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 7:35 am

Rip wrote:
Max Peck wrote:I don't think it's a matter of Putin seeing Clinton as a "mortal enemy" but rather that he sees Trump as a golden (Ha!) opportunity. At a minimum, a Trump administration that actually delivers on its promises is likely to tank the US economy and significantly damage America's standing in the world, while giving Russia much more of a free hand in its various adventures.
That at least makes a little sense.

The suggestion that Putin is terrified of another Clinton presidency is laughable. Unless he has a fear of big red buttons.

I'm not sure how you condemn/mock Clinton for a reset that didn't work and which she has learned from and will now stand up to the Russians, vs. a Trump who hasn't learned anything and still wants to reset with Russia? Who's the stupid candidate here?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 7:36 am

A seasoned politician actually did research and analysis on prospective opponents. News at 11.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 7:44 am

Grifman wrote:
Rip wrote:
Max Peck wrote:I don't think it's a matter of Putin seeing Clinton as a "mortal enemy" but rather that he sees Trump as a golden (Ha!) opportunity. At a minimum, a Trump administration that actually delivers on its promises is likely to tank the US economy and significantly damage America's standing in the world, while giving Russia much more of a free hand in its various adventures.
That at least makes a little sense.

The suggestion that Putin is terrified of another Clinton presidency is laughable. Unless he has a fear of big red buttons.

I'm not sure how you condemn/mock Clinton for a reset that didn't work and which she has learned from and will now stand up to the Russians, vs. a Trump who hasn't learned anything and still wants to reset with Russia? Who's the stupid candidate here?

Anyone who actually thought it would work should be mocked. Just like the Iran deal, the Syrian "line in the sand", and many others. If doing things that fail miserably is a qualification then yea, no one on earth is more qualified than her.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 8:30 am

You realize that diplomacy fails all the time, don't you? And that it's not all in one party's hands?

The "reset" was an attempt to bring Russia back into productive contact with western powers, and it came after a disastrous period during which the Bush administration basically shut down relations with Moscow and made it impossible to engage in any area. Everyone knew that that wasn't the way to go (even the Bushies), so the attempt to re-engage was welcomed across the political spectrum.

The first stage of re-engagement was productive in several areas, including economics and attempts to reign in nuclear proliferation. The Russians were actually allowing Americans to help secure the ex-USSR arsenal. There was cooperation on Iran. Economic stability seemed possible in a way that was better for everyone.

The failure of re-normalization of relations didn't happen because we were stupid to believe Putin; it happened because Putin shifted hard against internal reforms and (basically jettisoning his long-time partner Medvedev, who seems at least partly to believe that Russia could partner with the West) went back to a hard line. This was a hard shift, and it was one we couldn't foresee.

The reset was the only thing to do, and it happened to be the right thing to do at the time.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 8:37 am

Rip wrote:
Kraken wrote:
hepcat wrote:A Russian journalist was on the news recently stating that Putin most likely feels he can control a Trump far more easily than he could Hillary. Hence the praise Putin heaps on his dream president. But he also said he doubted that Putin was directing the Wikileaks releases. His point was that any intelligence agency that could do something like that would keep it a secret for as long as they could.
What president in recent history has had more foreign policy experience than Hillary? Whether or not you approve of her record, she has a seat at the big boy's table on Day One.
So? Matt Millen has tons of experience running an NFL team, I still wouldn't hire him.

But most of us would look at the other potential candidate for the job and realize that a fern with the word "Smart!" written in crayon on its base was probably not a good choice.

Rip wrote:The six candidates Hillary didn't want to face.

Well, at least you're facing the reality of the situation now.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 8:51 am

I think it's funny how all of this normal activity is desperately being spun as something nefarious.

Campaigns do research on opponents and identify strengths and weaknesses. That doesn't mean Hillary was "quaking in her boots."

Campaigns have relationships with the media (listen to the Keepin' it 1600 podcast - the hosts while working as Obama aides were on speaking terms with many different journalists). That doesn't mean there are shady backroom deals going on.

Campaigns strategize about how to defeat their opponent. That doesn't mean Hillary "stole the nomination" from Bernie Sanders.

All this stuff is the same thing a Republican - or any competent campaign - would do. It's called politics as usual.

It really is almost comical that this stuff is being presented as "October surprises." It's one of the most severe cases of straw-grasping I've ever seen in politics.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 8:51 am

Holman wrote:You realize that diplomacy fails all the time, don't you? And that it's not all in one party's hands?

The "reset" was an attempt to bring Russia back into productive contact with western powers, and it came after a disastrous period during which the Bush administration basically shut down relations with Moscow and made it impossible to engage in any area. Everyone knew that that wasn't the way to go (even the Bushies), so the attempt to re-engage was welcomed across the political spectrum.

The first stage of re-engagement was productive in several areas, including economics and attempts to reign in nuclear proliferation. The Russians were actually allowing Americans to help secure the ex-USSR arsenal. There was cooperation on Iran. Economic stability seemed possible in a way that was better for everyone.

The failure of re-normalization of relations didn't happen because we were stupid to believe Putin; it happened because Putin shifted hard against internal reforms and (basically jettisoning his long-time partner Medvedev, who seems at least partly to believe that Russia could partner with the West) went back to a hard line. This was a hard shift, and it was one we couldn't foresee.

The reset was the only thing to do, and it happened to be the right thing to do at the time.

Not sure how far one would have to have their head up their ass to not forsee it, but pretty far for sure. They were never attempting to reign in proliferation, they were just showing our diplomacy for the weaksauce it was and playing us like rubes.

The discovery of how easy it was to play us then led to Crimea. Which paid off handsomely. Now they are secure in their position and we have zero leverage to get them to do anything. Look for them to become even more belligerent than China who has been and will become even more so. Now the middle players like Turkey, Israel, Egypt, etc see much less reason to align with US interests (because everyone knows we won't do shit) and just pursue whatever the hell they please whether it conflicts with US interests or not.

Our current foreign policy is to talk a big game and then agree to ridiculous deals that give our enemies what they want (often even paying for it) and give us mountains of hoops to jump through to even contemplate taking any action against us. Iran is a loose cannon at this point and I predict after the election they will begin flexing a lot of in your face work on their weapons program which will accomplish its goal before the next POTUS leaves office.

This election isn't the end of the nightmare or even the beginning of the end. It is just the end of the beginning.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 8:59 am

So voting for Putin's personal lapdog is the solution?

Putin: Your hair looks especially nice today, Donald.

Trump: Alright, alright...you drive a hard bargain Vlad. You can have Iowa.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 9:12 am

Kraken wrote:
Defiant wrote:
Kraken wrote:
What president in recent history has had more foreign policy experience than Hillary?
Eisenhower is the only one that springs to mind, though I guess Nixon and Bush Sr might have had comparable experience.

(Oh, it was a rhetorical question... never mind )
Not rhetorical. Ike, sure, but school me on the Nixon and Bush 1 comparisons.

I'd give him Bush the First. In the Nixon/Ford years he served as ambassador to the UN, envoy to China and director of the CIA.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 9:22 am

I guess my question is what did it cost the US to attempt to develop more friendly diplomatic ties with Russia and failing?

Would a harder line have stopped Crimea? I'm pretty sure Russia is under crippling economic sanctions. Should the US have gone to war?

The US is trying to find a way to work with Russia in Syria but they sure as hell aren't making it easy.

I guess I'mnot seeing why the "reset" (outside of a stupid PR name) was such a harmful thing to attempt.

Anyone want to explain this " horrific diplomatic blunder" and what it cost the US?

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 9:24 am

Rip wrote:The discovery of how easy it was to play us then led to Crimea. Which paid off handsomely. Now they are secure in their position and we have zero leverage to get them to do anything. Look for them to become even more belligerent than China who has been and will become even more so. Now the middle players like Turkey, Israel, Egypt, etc see much less reason to align with US interests (because everyone knows we won't do shit) and just pursue whatever the hell they please whether it conflicts with US interests or not.

Secure in their position?

Dude, Russia's only solidly reliable ally in the region is Syria. Part of why Putin is being Putin in this election is that the Russians see their global influence waning, and they know Trump will help shore up Assad (who on the scale of murderers makes ISIS look like amateurs). Syria is what Russia desperately needs to remain a global power; Trump's promise to let them have Eastern Europe was just Christmas out of the blue.

That Putin is a dangerous asshole doesn't mean he's powerful or that he's winning. It doesn't actually work that way. (And now I think I know why you've fallen so hard for Trump.)

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 9:50 am

Rip wrote:Not sure how far one would have to have their head up their ass to not forsee it, but pretty far for sure. They were never attempting to reign in proliferation, they were just showing our diplomacy for the weaksauce it was and playing us like rubes.

Interesting interpretation. Holman was right above - internal politics changed and Putin shifted back to more hard line and nationalistic.

The discovery of how easy it was to play us then led to Crimea. Which paid off handsomely. Now they are secure in their position and we have zero leverage to get them to do anything.

We had no leverage to begin with. What were we going to do? Europe was willing to turn a blind eye.

Look for them to become even more belligerent than China who has been and will become even more so. Now the middle players like Turkey, Israel, Egypt, etc see much less reason to align with US interests (because everyone knows we won't do shit) and just pursue whatever the hell they please whether it conflicts with US interests or not.

Right. And why is that? Because we are tied up completely in the middle east and they see a completely divided United States Congress constantly tying their President's shoe laces? Blaming foreign policy problems on Obama without seeing the optics the Republican nihilists have created is wrong. It does not help that a Clinton win is a guarantee of more of this divisive nonsense - perhaps even amped up and a Drumpf win shatters our world view too. You can point your finger at our "weak" leader but he has done a fine job considering the bullshit the Republicans have done. Don't you think that it is apparent to anyone watching that the Republicans have basically stopped all normal governance in this country. We can't budget. We can't invest in ourselves. We can't take care of our people. We can't appoint judges. On top of 6 years of complete obstruction - we then have a major party candidate who brags about sexual assault, says insane things daily, is of insanely low character, and is completely unqualified. Perhaps...just perhaps...that is why we are seen as weak.

Our current foreign policy is to talk a big game and then agree to ridiculous deals that give our enemies what they want (often even paying for it) and give us mountains of hoops to jump through to even contemplate taking any action against us. Iran is a loose cannon at this point and I predict after the election they will begin flexing a lot of in your face work on their weapons program which will accomplish its goal before the next POTUS leaves office.

Believe what you want but it was what was achievable considering everything going on. Again what was the alternative? Invade? Bomb them? Seriously - this bitching is ridiculous. Nay saying everything is pretty easy. Getting shit done is tough. They got shit done. Maybe it won't work out but at least they are trying to solve problems.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 9:54 am

How did Kasich get left off that list? Unless by "didn't want to face" you meant "losing to someone who would also be damning to the US in civil rights and promote a corporate sponsored legislative process to regulate corporations while letting infrastructure fail and national debt spiral in the name of tax reduction".

But more importantly, wikileaks shows Clinton's team aren't all bad:

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/l ... /91927536/

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 9:56 am

Max Peck wrote:
Kraken wrote:
Defiant wrote:
Kraken wrote:
What president in recent history has had more foreign policy experience than Hillary?
Eisenhower is the only one that springs to mind, though I guess Nixon and Bush Sr might have had comparable experience.

(Oh, it was a rhetorical question... never mind )
Not rhetorical. Ike, sure, but school me on the Nixon and Bush 1 comparisons.
I'd give him Bush the First. In the Nixon/Ford years he served as ambassador to the UN, envoy to China and director of the CIA.

As congressman, Nixon had been on the Herter Committee that went to Europe to investigate foreign aid and eventually led to the passage of the Marshall Plan. And while serving as Vice President, he travelled to the Far East, Africa, South America and the Soviet Union.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 9:59 am

Holman wrote:
Rip wrote:The discovery of how easy it was to play us then led to Crimea. Which paid off handsomely. Now they are secure in their position and we have zero leverage to get them to do anything. Look for them to become even more belligerent than China who has been and will become even more so. Now the middle players like Turkey, Israel, Egypt, etc see much less reason to align with US interests (because everyone knows we won't do shit) and just pursue whatever the hell they please whether it conflicts with US interests or not.
Secure in their position?

Dude, Russia's only solidly reliable ally in the region is Syria. Part of why Putin is being Putin in this election is that the Russians see their global influence waning, and they know Trump will help shore up Assad (who on the scale of murderers makes ISIS look like amateurs). Syria is what Russia desperately needs to remain a global power; Trump's promise to let them have Eastern Europe was just Christmas out of the blue.

That Putin is a dangerous asshole doesn't mean he's powerful or that he's winning. It doesn't actually work that way. (And now I think I know why you've fallen so hard for Trump.)

The United States has significantly more military capability in the Middle East today than Russia—America has 35,000 troops and hundreds of aircraft; the Russians roughly 2,000 troops and, perhaps, 50 aircraft—and yet Middle Eastern leaders are making pilgrimages to Moscow to see Vladimir Putin these days, not rushing to Washington. Two weeks ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu traveled to see the Russian president, his second trip to Russia since last fall, and King Salman of Saudi Arabia is planning a trip soon. Egypt’s president and other Middle Eastern leaders have also made the trek to see Putin.

Why is this happening, and why on my trips to the region am I hearing that Arabs and Israelis have pretty much given up on President Barack Obama? Because perceptions matter more than mere power: The Russians are seen as willing to use power to affect the balance of power in the region, and we are not.

But in the Middle East it is Putin’s views on the uses of coercion, including force to achieve political objectives, that appears to be the norm, not the exception—and that is true for our friends as well as adversaries. The Saudis acted in Yemen in no small part because they feared the United States would impose no limits on Iranian expansion in the area, and they felt the need to draw their own lines. In the aftermath of the nuclear deal, Iran’s behavior in the region has been more aggressive, not less so, with regular Iranian forces joining the Revolutionary Guard now deployed to Syria, wider use of Shiite militias, arms smuggling into Bahrain and the eastern province of Saudi Arabia, and ballistic missile tests.

Russia’s presence has not helped. The Russian military intervention turned the tide in Syria and, contrary to Obama’s view, has put the Russians in a stronger position without imposing any meaningful costs on them. Not only are they not being penalized for their Syrian intervention, but the president himself is now calling Vladimir Putin and seeking his help to pressure Assad—effectively recognizing who has leverage. Middle Eastern leaders recognize it as well and realize they need to be talking to the Russians if they are to safeguard their interests. No doubt, it would be better if the rest of the world defined the nature of power the way Obama does. It would be better if, internationally, Putin were seen to be losing. But he is not.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ers-213867

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:04 am

http://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-ret ... st/5478226

They did not come for the lovely Indian summer that blessed Moscow this week, not for the yellow and red leaves covering the maple and birch trees, though this sumptuous new Xanadu is quite fetching this time of the year; its streets refashioned at enormous expense, parks tended by best gardeners; bicycle paths and sidewalks repaved and even its feared traffic jams abated somewhat.

Ostensibly, Abbas and Erdogan came to unveil, together with Putin, the grand new Cathedral Mosque of Moscow, a vast and opulent structure where ten thousand worshippers can pray at once. This city has more Muslims than many a Muslim city has; about two millions of its 14 million dwellers are nominal Muslims.

The evidence is everywhere. Russia is in a much better position than they had been since the USSR collapse all thanks to a reset.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:11 am

Blame fatigue from our misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan -- started but not finished by Bush. If you want the US to be more likely to use force, vote for Clinton. Trump is scared of even acknowledging he supported those wars.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:15 am

Defiant wrote:And while serving as Vice President, he travelled to the Far East, Africa, South America and the Soviet Union.

Well, I deliberately discounted vice-presidential experience given that I don't know how influential Bush was as Reagan's VP, and as for Nixon...

Ike wrote:If you give me a week, I might think of one.

Response to reporter's question of whether the president could give an example of a major idea of Vice President Nixon's that was adopted by the administration. Press conference, August 24, 1960, during Nixon's presidential campaign.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:17 am

Zarathud wrote:Blame fatigue from our misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan -- started but not finished by Bush. If you want the US to be more likely to use force, vote for Clinton. Trump is scared of even acknowledging he supported those wars.

Hasn't Trump both supported putting ground troops in the middle east and supported being a lot more isolationist and not get into any foreign affairs? (someone posted that page that rated the candidates on a spectrum and had Trump at both ends) Sort of like a Schrodinger foreign policy.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:18 am

Zarathud wrote:Blame fatigue from our misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan -- started but not finished by Bush. If you want the US to be more likely to use force, vote for Clinton. Trump is scared of even acknowledging he supported those wars.

Well, unless you want a Dr. Strangelove-esque argument in the War Room as to why we can't just nuke them.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:28 am

Max Peck wrote:
Defiant wrote:And while serving as Vice President, he travelled to the Far East, Africa, South America and the Soviet Union.
Well, I deliberately discounted vice-presidential experience given that I don't know how influential Bush was as Reagan's VP, and as for Nixon...
Ike wrote:If you give me a week, I might think of one.

Response to reporter's question of whether the president could give an example of a major idea of Vice President Nixon's that was adopted by the administration. Press conference, August 24, 1960, during Nixon's presidential campaign.

Eisenhower wrote:Dick, I could kick myself everytime some jackass brings up that god damn "give me a week" business.

Ike thinks you're a jackass, happy?

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:37 am

Defiant wrote:
Max Peck wrote:
Defiant wrote:And while serving as Vice President, he travelled to the Far East, Africa, South America and the Soviet Union.
Well, I deliberately discounted vice-presidential experience given that I don't know how influential Bush was as Reagan's VP, and as for Nixon...
Ike wrote:If you give me a week, I might think of one.

Response to reporter's question of whether the president could give an example of a major idea of Vice President Nixon's that was adopted by the administration. Press conference, August 24, 1960, during Nixon's presidential campaign.

Eisenhower wrote:Dick, I could kick myself everytime some jackass brings up that god damn "give me a week" business.
Ike thinks you're a jackass, happy?

Yup. I believe that what he publicly said on the record more accurately reflects reality than what he said privately to assuage Nixon's hurt feelings, and Eisenhower would hardly be the first politician to regret speaking a truth.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 1:46 pm

Rip wrote:
I'm not sure how you condemn/mock Clinton for a reset that didn't work and which she has learned from and will now stand up to the Russians, vs. a Trump who hasn't learned anything and still wants to reset with Russia? Who's the stupid candidate here?
Anyone who actually thought it would work should be mocked. Just like the Iran deal, the Syrian "line in the sand", and many others. If doing things that fail miserably is a qualification then yea, no one on earth is more qualified than her.

You really haven't answered my question, Rip. You still haven't explained how Trump is a better choice, since he is just reset 2.0. Clinton knows better, what about Trump? Why is he a better choice here? You whine about Russia taking Crimea, intervening in Ukraine but Trump looks like he's ready to give up the Baltic states to Russia with his comments about NATO? Exactly how is he going to be better in this area of foreign policy with respect to Russia?

Please answer the question.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 1:47 pm

3 words will answer you question: Hillary Goddamn Clinton

Looking for any logic beyond that is an exercise in futility, unfortunately. Although it can be fun sometimes!

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 1:57 pm

Actually Eisenhower didn't really like Nixon and tried to dump him off the re-election ticket behind the scenes.

NickAragua · Post by **NickAragua** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 2:05 pm

This is the evidence that ends the Clinton campaign right here. Game over, man.

naednek · Post by **naednek** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 2:27 pm

Rip wrote:
El Guapo wrote:I like Hillary a lot, but at the same time man I wish Biden were the nominee - he's got a much more natural charisma as well, and so I suspect he'd be up an additional 2%ish.
Biden would be up 20%, but that ship has sailed. You guys picked you horse and now you are stuck with her.

It's fun reading this post when you're 3 weeks behind in this thread

NickAragua · Post by **NickAragua** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 2:28 pm

Maybe Rip is actually Baghdad Bob.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 5:54 pm

I generally like Scalzi's endorsement.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:04 pm

Zaxxon wrote:I generally like Scalzi's endorsement.

+1

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:20 pm

My favorite bit from that:

I’m going to skip over the vast majority of this right now by noting that there are very few people in the world whose personal and public conduct has been so aggressively and punitively investigated, and for so long, as Hillary Clinton, and yet she continues to walk among us, a free woman whose errors, when they have been made, are usually of the venal rather than the mortal sort. Which probably means one of two things: Either this decades-long persecution of Hillary Clinton on the part of her enemies is largely motivated for their own political and financial benefit, or that Hillary Clinton is a criminal mastermind so good at evading the forces of justice that holy shit we should be glad that she’s finally decided to use her evil-honed skills for the forces of good.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:52 pm

The Deplorables have a new target - all women

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:53 pm

Skinypupy wrote:My favorite bit from that:

I’m going to skip over the vast majority of this right now by noting that there are very few people in the world whose personal and public conduct has been so aggressively and punitively investigated, and for so long, as Hillary Clinton, and yet she continues to walk among us, a free woman whose errors, when they have been made, are usually of the venal rather than the mortal sort. Which probably means one of two things: Either this decades-long persecution of Hillary Clinton on the part of her enemies is largely motivated for their own political and financial benefit, or that Hillary Clinton is a criminal mastermind so good at evading the forces of justice that holy shit we should be glad that she’s finally decided to use her evil-honed skills for the forces of good.

So true. Judicial Watch seems to exist almost entirely to go after the Clintons, first suit came in 1994 and it currently has 20 active cases involving Hillary.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 7:47 pm

Grifman wrote:
Rip wrote:
I'm not sure how you condemn/mock Clinton for a reset that didn't work and which she has learned from and will now stand up to the Russians, vs. a Trump who hasn't learned anything and still wants to reset with Russia? Who's the stupid candidate here?
Anyone who actually thought it would work should be mocked. Just like the Iran deal, the Syrian "line in the sand", and many others. If doing things that fail miserably is a qualification then yea, no one on earth is more qualified than her.
You really haven't answered my question, Rip. You still haven't explained how Trump is a better choice, since he is just reset 2.0. Clinton knows better, what about Trump? Why is he a better choice here? You whine about Russia taking Crimea, intervening in Ukraine but Trump looks like he's ready to give up the Baltic states to Russia with his comments about NATO? Exactly how is he going to be better in this area of foreign policy with respect to Russia?

Please answer the question.

What we have always done to overcome them. Outperform them, outarm them, and stand strong against them even when it calls for actual confrontation. The full answer would take a few pages and I'm not that interested in typing that much. It is lot easier to lay out exactly what not to do and I will defer on the premise that if Hillary wins she can show you instead of me needing to lay it out.

Default · Post by **Default** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 8:09 pm

And, after eight years, the GOP, or whatever it will call itself, will be in a panicked lather about someone else who is coming to take their guns, force their wives and daughters to have abortions, and turn their sons into Harvey Fierstein.

I have seen this crap repeated over and over for 26 years of delivering political mail, and I want to slap the shit out of people. I catch myself and realize that some people just have to be terrified and they are willing to believe any lie that can make them feel threatened.

raydude · Post by **raydude** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 8:10 pm

Rip wrote:
Grifman wrote:
Rip wrote:
I'm not sure how you condemn/mock Clinton for a reset that didn't work and which she has learned from and will now stand up to the Russians, vs. a Trump who hasn't learned anything and still wants to reset with Russia? Who's the stupid candidate here?
Anyone who actually thought it would work should be mocked. Just like the Iran deal, the Syrian "line in the sand", and many others. If doing things that fail miserably is a qualification then yea, no one on earth is more qualified than her.
You really haven't answered my question, Rip. You still haven't explained how Trump is a better choice, since he is just reset 2.0. Clinton knows better, what about Trump? Why is he a better choice here? You whine about Russia taking Crimea, intervening in Ukraine but Trump looks like he's ready to give up the Baltic states to Russia with his comments about NATO? Exactly how is he going to be better in this area of foreign policy with respect to Russia?

Please answer the question.
What we have always done to overcome them. Outperform them, outarm them, and stand strong against them even when it calls for actual confrontation. The full answer would take a few pages and I'm not that interested in typing that much. It is lot easier to lay out exactly what not to do and I will defer on the premise that if Hillary wins she can show you instead of me needing to lay it out.

Blitzer: So you’re really suggesting the United States should decrease its role in NATO?

Trump: Not decrease its role but certainly decrease the kind of spending. We are spending a tremendous amount in NATO and other people proportionately less. No good.

How the hell do you get a foreign policy of "Outperform them, outarm them, and stand strong against them even when it calls for actual confrontation" from Trump's words on NATO? Or did you get all that from "my foreign policy is going to be great, believe me!" ?

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 8:16 pm

It's in the cool aid.

Props to Scalzi. He articulates his thoughts on Hillary nicely. It's even better that I agree with his reasoning.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 8:24 pm

Since Trump seems inclined to appease and capitulate to the Russians, there'll never be a need to worry about actual confrontation between Trumptopia and Russia. Given that the US military already "outperforms" and "outarms" (nice Trumpism) the Russian military, I think Rip's plan pretty much covers all the bases, and already provides more detail than any of Trump's policy positions.