I don't even watch the D debates. Anything substantive they say I can get from a text summary after the fact, and nothing new is revealed about the candidates at any point.
Here, let me summarize every Dem debate from now until the presidential election.
Burnie says a thing. Hillary says a thing. Most of those things are similar if not the same, a handful aren't. There are other people on stage, who are about as much use as a chocolate teapot and with about as much chance of being nominated.
Bernie's fans go apeshit because Bernie said a thing, attack Hillary for saying a thing, probably the same thing with different words. Claims he won the debate and conspiracy theories about random audience engagement polls commence.
Hillary's supporters are largely ambivalent, because they pretty much assume she's got it on a lock anyway. Most don't watch, and might just catch a highlight reel or a few summary articles.
Eventually, someone gets around to picking a presidential candidate from the field of candidates who are named "Hillary" and have been married to a president in the past.
Clinton's set of issues is only similar to Bernie's because she's been aping him since a few months ago. Her agenda is very different.
But no, I'm not going to get into a slap fight about it on this forum anymore.
Clinton is full of shit, while Bernie is a genuine, sincere guy who the DNC has been undermining since it looked like he was starting to get some attention. Lowest number of debates ever, absurd schedule for debates, throwing Bernie under the bus for something a staffer did which may or may not have been deliberate, because their datamart vendor fucked up (and Bernie's campaign had reported the fuck up numerous times in the past as well as this time) and then reinstating his access to the data like, the next day (ignoring their demands of proof from Bernie that he had deleted data he may or may not have ever had) because they didn't have a leg to stand on...
Yeah Clinton (and her campaign) are just like Bernie...
But no, I'm not going to get into a slap fight about it on this forum anymore.
He said, immediately before he wrote an exceptionally provocative paragraph on the same subject he's been slap fighting on this Forum about for weeks (months?).
Also Clinton closing with "may the Force be with you." That was weird.
It was great. It was the likeable side of Hillary that hasn't been seen all that much. More moments like that are needed.
The debate as a whole was very good. Each candidate had a great night, but that just means Hillary's firming up her position as the front-runner since she needs to have a bad night for Bernie or Carcetti to gain on her. Her only flub was the response to the Syria question because she didn't say much of anything about the tribal or religious divides of the conflict, which is where the bar should be as far as competence on the issue is concerned. That said, she's the best on both sides when it comes to foreign policy, so if she misses the bar by a few inches she's still better than every other candidate who are missing it by a few feet.
But no, I'm not going to get into a slap fight about it on this forum anymore.
He said, immediately before he wrote an exceptionally provocative paragraph on the same subject he's been slap fighting on this Forum about for weeks (months?).
I just assume he's deliberately trolling at this point, so there's no value to responding to him at all.
The debate as a whole was very good. Each candidate had a great night, but that just means Hillary's firming up her position as the front-runner since she needs to have a bad night for Bernie or Carcetti to gain on her. Her only flub was the response to the Syria question because she didn't say much of anything about the tribal or religious divides of the conflict, which is where the bar should be as far as competence on the issue is concerned. That said, she's the best on both sides when it comes to foreign policy, so if she misses the bar by a few inches she's still better than every other candidate who are missing it by a few feet.
The foreign policy part actually scared me the most. It's not that her plan is bad, it's that every time they asked her what she would do if it failed her answer was that it wouldn't fail and repeating plan A. What happens if advisers and trainers alone can't beat ISIS? That's how Vietnam was started.
"We haven't got a counterargument for that so we'll just pat you on the head."
That's not what I expected. It's even more ridiculous. Oh well.
Clinton is American aristocracy with the disingenuity, ego, and narcissism to match. Bernie is just this dude who's into politics. He may not pander to all the proper liberal checkboxes, but he's on board with the ones that actually matter while Clinton's more about smoke and mirrors and pretending that American capitalism works.
And yeah, my Chewbacca is awesome, but Clinton is still a disaster. You want a female president? Warren is a much better choice (who still has some issues, but women are seriously under represented in this arena so the field is limited). I'd say Jill Stein maybe, if she had a snowball's chance in Hell.
throwing Bernie under the bus for something a staffer did which may or may not have been deliberate
Noooope. You don't get to lead a team, and then cry poor when you get shit, because a member of your team fucked up real bad. If he can't even be enough of a leader to take responsibility for people who he can speak directly to, and who work with him on a quite direct basis, how the fuck could he ever hope to lead a country?
It's not being thrown under the bus. It's called being a leader. The buck stops here, as Truman was fond of saying. And "Here" was not as far away as possible, using staffers as an ablative heat-shield.
Don't even get me started on the the whole "Waaah waaah clinton's just aping bernie" bollocks. Oh yeah, she was just aping him in the two years they were both senators, long before this campaign ever started, and they were voting identically 90+% of the time. Let me give you a tip, muppet - the only old, left-wing white dude from Brooklyn everybody wanted to be like in 2008-2009 was Jerry fucking Seinfeld, because bringing up Bernie Sanders back then would be met with a resounding "Who, sorry?"
I don't see how you still think carrying on like this is a good plan - the last dozen pages of this thread are pretty much just you getting worked like a heavy bag. If nothing else, I admire your persistence and dedication, I'd have packed it in ages ago.
The foreign policy part actually scared me the most. It's not that her plan is bad, it's that every time they asked her what she would do if it failed her answer was that it wouldn't fail and repeating plan A. What happens if advisers and trainers alone can't beat ISIS? That's how Vietnam was started.
Worrying about comparisons to VIetnam seems premature to me. We aren't nearly as invested in Syria as we were in Libya, and we weren't nearly as invested in Libya as we were in Vietnam.
The foreign policy part actually scared me the most. It's not that her plan is bad, it's that every time they asked her what she would do if it failed her answer was that it wouldn't fail and repeating plan A. What happens if advisers and trainers alone can't beat ISIS? That's how Vietnam was started.
Worrying about comparisons to VIetnam seems premature to me. We aren't nearly as invested in Syria as we were in Libya, and we weren't nearly as invested in Libya as we were in Vietnam.
Its not a prediction, it's a fear. Her plan could work, but I want to know what she'd do if it doesn't before making her in charge of that decision.
Now, in my mind, we should be in Syria with ground troops.
"We" in this case means a coalition force under the auspices of the UN, or at least NATO. (The latter would be problematic, since it would play into Putin's anti-NATO rhetoric handily).
People seem to forget what a triumph the Gulf War (desert shield/storm) was relative to previous and following intervetions The military success was secondary. The triumph was one of uniting most of the industrialized world through a complex weave of diplomacy spanning years. The actual military intervention was the least important piece of the puzzle.
I'm reasonably confident that a Hillary cabinet could, if the will were there, assemble such a coalition. I'm not very confident that a Bernie cabinet could.
Now, in my mind, we should be in Syria with ground troops.
"We" in this case means a coalition force under the auspices of the UN, or at least NATO. (The latter would be problematic, since it would play into Putin's anti-NATO rhetoric handily).
People seem to forget what a triumph the Gulf War (desert shield/storm) was relative to previous and following intervetions The military success was secondary. The triumph was one of uniting most of the industrialized world through a complex weave of diplomacy spanning years. The actual military intervention was the least important piece of the puzzle.
I'm reasonably confident that a Hillary cabinet could, if the will were there, assemble such a coalition. I'm not very confident that a Bernie cabinet could.
Boots on the ground is also one facet of a very, very multifaceted system of modern warfare; they count less now than they did in Desert Storm.
Now, in my mind, we should be in Syria with ground troops.
"We" in this case means a coalition force under the auspices of the UN, or at least NATO. (The latter would be problematic, since it would play into Putin's anti-NATO rhetoric handily).
People seem to forget what a triumph the Gulf War (desert shield/storm) was relative to previous and following intervetions The military success was secondary. The triumph was one of uniting most of the industrialized world through a complex weave of diplomacy spanning years. The actual military intervention was the least important piece of the puzzle.
I'm reasonably confident that a Hillary cabinet could, if the will were there, assemble such a coalition. I'm not very confident that a Bernie cabinet could.
Boots on the ground is also one facet of a very, very multifaceted system of modern warfare; they count less now than they did in Desert Storm.
Like it or not, it is also an essential factor in any plan that expects any degree of influence over the aftermath of these kinds of boondoggles. Bombs, planes, missiles and drones can do a lot of things, but hold ground, protect people, rebuild and win goodwill are not among them.
Desert Storm was a nice simple border war. Nation A invaded Nation B so that they could get contested land C. ISIS is a far more complicated dilemma resembling Vietnam more than Desert Storm. Infantry definitely need to be very involved in the fight, but I don't see why it should come from us. America needs to aid the nations directly involved in stopping this threat, however America does not need to fight other people's wars.
Now, in my mind, we should be in Syria with ground troops.
"We" in this case means a coalition force under the auspices of the UN, or at least NATO. (The latter would be problematic, since it would play into Putin's anti-NATO rhetoric handily).
People seem to forget what a triumph the Gulf War (desert shield/storm) was relative to previous and following intervetions The military success was secondary. The triumph was one of uniting most of the industrialized world through a complex weave of diplomacy spanning years. The actual military intervention was the least important piece of the puzzle.
I'm reasonably confident that a Hillary cabinet could, if the will were there, assemble such a coalition. I'm not very confident that a Bernie cabinet could.
Boots on the ground is also one facet of a very, very multifaceted system of modern warfare; they count less now than they did in Desert Storm.
Like it or not, it is also an essential factor in any plan that expects any degree of influence over the aftermath of these kinds of boondoggles. Bombs, planes, missiles and drones can do a lot of things, but hold ground, protect people, rebuild and win goodwill are not among them.
That's a separate question, with different concerns than just ending the current civil war, or at least just the fight against ISIS.
The obsession American politics has with likeability has always bothered me. I went through a spell of it myself with Obama, but I grew up. Most politicians can be urbane and charming. It is kind of in the job description. From many/most accounts, sitting down to have a drink with any of the last five presidents would have been an enjoyable night if you had avoided discussing their policies. I'm sure Richard Nixon, Herbert Hoover, and Calvin Coolidge had their moments.
Also this line bothered me, "I’ve come to believe that, in some ways, saying nice things about Hillary Clinton is a subversive act." What kind of politics is it if this passes for a subversive act?
Herbert Hoover was a great humanitarian and great Secretary of Commerce. It's not like he caused the crash in 1929, he just wasn't ready for it -- and who could be?
Comments
Burnie says a thing.
Hillary says a thing.
Most of those things are similar if not the same, a handful aren't.
There are other people on stage, who are about as much use as a chocolate teapot and with about as much chance of being nominated.
Bernie's fans go apeshit because Bernie said a thing, attack Hillary for saying a thing, probably the same thing with different words. Claims he won the debate and conspiracy theories about random audience engagement polls commence.
Hillary's supporters are largely ambivalent, because they pretty much assume she's got it on a lock anyway. Most don't watch, and might just catch a highlight reel or a few summary articles.
Eventually, someone gets around to picking a presidential candidate from the field of candidates who are named "Hillary" and have been married to a president in the past.
Meanwhile, the republican debates:
Indeed.
But no, I'm not going to get into a slap fight about it on this forum anymore.
Clinton is full of shit, while Bernie is a genuine, sincere guy who the DNC has been undermining since it looked like he was starting to get some attention. Lowest number of debates ever, absurd schedule for debates, throwing Bernie under the bus for something a staffer did which may or may not have been deliberate, because their datamart vendor fucked up (and Bernie's campaign had reported the fuck up numerous times in the past as well as this time) and then reinstating his access to the data like, the next day (ignoring their demands of proof from Bernie that he had deleted data he may or may not have ever had) because they didn't have a leg to stand on...
Yeah Clinton (and her campaign) are just like Bernie...
The debate as a whole was very good. Each candidate had a great night, but that just means Hillary's firming up her position as the front-runner since she needs to have a bad night for Bernie or Carcetti to gain on her. Her only flub was the response to the Syria question because she didn't say much of anything about the tribal or religious divides of the conflict, which is where the bar should be as far as competence on the issue is concerned. That said, she's the best on both sides when it comes to foreign policy, so if she misses the bar by a few inches she's still better than every other candidate who are missing it by a few feet. I just assume he's deliberately trolling at this point, so there's no value to responding to him at all.
That's not what I expected. It's even more ridiculous. Oh well.
Clinton is American aristocracy with the disingenuity, ego, and narcissism to match. Bernie is just this dude who's into politics. He may not pander to all the proper liberal checkboxes, but he's on board with the ones that actually matter while Clinton's more about smoke and mirrors and pretending that American capitalism works.
And yeah, my Chewbacca is awesome, but Clinton is still a disaster. You want a female president? Warren is a much better choice (who still has some issues, but women are seriously under represented in this arena so the field is limited). I'd say Jill Stein maybe, if she had a snowball's chance in Hell.
It's not being thrown under the bus. It's called being a leader. The buck stops here, as Truman was fond of saying. And "Here" was not as far away as possible, using staffers as an ablative heat-shield.
Don't even get me started on the the whole "Waaah waaah clinton's just aping bernie" bollocks. Oh yeah, she was just aping him in the two years they were both senators, long before this campaign ever started, and they were voting identically 90+% of the time. Let me give you a tip, muppet - the only old, left-wing white dude from Brooklyn everybody wanted to be like in 2008-2009 was Jerry fucking Seinfeld, because bringing up Bernie Sanders back then would be met with a resounding "Who, sorry?"
I don't see how you still think carrying on like this is a good plan - the last dozen pages of this thread are pretty much just you getting worked like a heavy bag. If nothing else, I admire your persistence and dedication, I'd have packed it in ages ago.
"We" in this case means a coalition force under the auspices of the UN, or at least NATO. (The latter would be problematic, since it would play into Putin's anti-NATO rhetoric handily).
People seem to forget what a triumph the Gulf War (desert shield/storm) was relative to previous and following intervetions The military success was secondary. The triumph was one of uniting most of the industrialized world through a complex weave of diplomacy spanning years. The actual military intervention was the least important piece of the puzzle.
I'm reasonably confident that a Hillary cabinet could, if the will were there, assemble such a coalition. I'm not very confident that a Bernie cabinet could.
EDIT: and more directly related to the thread topic, The Onion affiliate Starwipe has compiled a list of some celebrities who have suffered head trauma and support Trump.
http://sadydoyle.tumblr.com/post/135664586198/likable
Also this line bothered me, "I’ve come to believe that, in some ways, saying nice things about Hillary Clinton is a subversive act." What kind of politics is it if this passes for a subversive act?