Dream: Emphasizing civilian aid as much as or more than military aid. If we defeat ISIS, we need to set up a proper country that can defend itself if/when another violent insurrection occurs. Something like Reconstruction or the Marshall Plan.
Reality: Just admit she'll put troops on the ground and start another land war in Asia.
I think that Hillary coming out with either of those could undercut Obama's ability to negotiate with Putin, Assad, or the various rebel groups. If Hillary says anything that doesn't stick with what Obama is saying, and they like the sound of Hillary's proposal more, then there's no reason to continue dealing with Obama. By being vague, she creates uncertainty, which could make them more willing to work with Obama while he's in office.
As Secretary of State she didn't seem troubled sending drone strikes without due process. She advanced our presence in the Middle East putting troops on the ground. Sure, they weren't "combatants", but as any Vietnam veteran will tell you that doesn't matter, they'll be fighting anyway. Unlike some of her disappointingly mild domestic policies, there isn't enough political capital in this issue for me to expect she would do anything less than what she has done before.
1) She didn't do any of thise things, President Obama did. She worked with him and advised him, but she carried out his orders. 2) As to not voicing concerns about carying out drone strikes without due process, are you referring to this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/us-justification-drone-killing-american-citizen-awlaki or to the use of drones in general. If the former, you make an excellent point, but again, she was not the one making the ultimate decision (though she could have stepped down from her position or otherwise protested it, if she so chose). If the latter, than it undermines concerns about putting boots on the ground, as drones (while still devices of war) at least reduce the number of US service men and women out of the frey. 3) As to advancing our presence in the Middle East, what would you have the Obama Administration due in the wake of the disasters of the Bush Administration? Genuinely, given the givens what alternatives would you have had them choose?
I like to speak in generalizations because talking in depth about state sponsored killing is a little emotionally charged, y'know?
I am genuinely sorry if this makes you uncomforable. Feel free not to respond. However, this is what I feel us meaningful discourse. It helps to broaden and deepen understanding, which informs the actions of those involved to, one hopes, take action to prevent unneccessary bloodshed. I am sincerely interested in your responses.
3) As to advancing our presence in the Middle East, what would you have the Obama Administration due in the wake of the disasters of the Bush Administration? Genuinely, given the givens what alternatives would you have had them choose?
Reduce military aid in favor of infrastructure and nation building. Our solution to the power vacuum was to continue to occupy it, which only perpetuates the constant bloodshed. I am aware that we did some of this, but we certainly didn't emphasize it enough.
If the former, you make an excellent point, but again, she was not the one making the ultimate decision (though she could have stepped down from her position or otherwise protested it, if she so chose).
As you can see, I am not defending, simply clarifying.
Maybe my politics are outdated. Many of my beliefs around foreign policy come from Henry Wallace and Gene McCarthy. I try not to read much about atrocities these days. I followed them closely for years until it started to hurt too much.
Maybe my politics are outdated. Many of my beliefs around foreign policy come from Henry Wallace and Gene McCarthy. I try not to read much about atrocities these days. I followed them closely for years until it started to hurt too much.
Maybe my politics are outdated. Many of my beliefs around foreign policy come from Henry Wallace and Gene McCarthy. I try not to read much about atrocities these days. I followed them closely for years until it started to hurt too much.
Maybe my politics are outdated. Many of my beliefs around foreign policy come from Henry Wallace and Gene McCarthy. I try not to read much about atrocities these days. I followed them closely for years until it started to hurt too much.
Maybe my politics are outdated. Many of my beliefs around foreign policy come from Henry Wallace and Gene McCarthy. I try not to read much about atrocities these days. I followed them closely for years until it started to hurt too much.
Greg, your main concern about Clinton's policies is based on a vague, unsupported comparison to a vastly dissimilar conflict, correct?
Edit: This wasn't meant as a personal attack, just a call for ensuring that political opinions are specific and supported, particularly when it comes to Hillary Clinton. I won't deny that there are valid criticisms of her policies and political history, but the vague Clinton bashing has melded with decidedly sexist attitudes. I truly want a meaningful discussion, full of critiques, facts, and supported opinions. It is the very lack of such discourse that allows for Trump to exist as a viable candidate and for Clinton to be seen as a great satan.
I think Greg has sworn off politics for the next month or so.
My only valid criticisms about Clinton are: 1) Not liberal enough for me 2) Isn't making getting money out of politics her sole priority (though I'm having a hard time holding that against her)
Due to money still being a massive factor in American politics, I'm fine with Hillary giving speeches to Wall Street to get such money and convince them she is on their side.
Considering that the "Citizens United" decision involved a movie that was basically a hit piece on Clinton herself, I think she has perspective on the problem.
She isn't super-liberal and she's changed her position over the years but I rather her change her mind than cling to outdated positions.
Due to money still being a massive factor in American politics, I'm fine with Hillary giving speeches to Wall Street to get such money and convince them she is on their side.
I didn't say I had a problem with her giving speeches to Wall Street, I said: Not making getting money out of politics her sole priority.
What I mean is be for publicly funded elections what Obama was for healthcare. Push it through despite the whining and bitching of the opposition. And no baby's first like the ACA. Allotted sums, up to a maximum, equal among contenders, no fundraising.
I didn't say I had a problem with her giving speeches to Wall Street, I said: Not making getting money out of politics her sole priority.
What I mean is be for publicly funded elections what Obama was for healthcare. Push it through despite the whining and bitching of the opposition. And no baby's first like the ACA. Allotted sums, up to a maximum, equal among contenders, no fundraising.
With a Republican controlled House and (possibly the Senate) how would that even be possible? The ACA was only possible in the first two years of Obama's presidency because they controlled the Congress and the Senate by the slimmest of margins.
It was a Republican administration that put Roberts on the bench that made Citizens United possible, as well as neutering the Voting rights act. We're already seeing the result of the latter in Republican controlled states.
To reiterate, I said I wanted her to make getting money out of politics her sole priority. ala Mr.Lessig during his short flirtation with being a presidential candidate.
With a Republican controlled House and (possibly the Senate) how would that even be possible?
Are you saying it's not possible to change one's own priorities?
Republicans blocking some nonsense is a roadblock. I have faith that with her incredible competency and years of experience, that she'll manage to overcome roadblocks as they crop up.
To reiterate, I said I wanted her to make getting money out of politics her sole priority.
As someone who agrees strongly with the goal, I disagree equally strongly with your use of the word "sole."
Civil rights is easily more important than that. A corrupt system can advance or regress civil rights: its corruption is an orthogonal problem. Our current system has advanced civil rights profoundly. Slower than many of us hope or expect, but faster than most other systems in the world.
Making a more "fair" system is a noble goal. But it's literally impossible to do it as your sole focus. Further, the president isn't even the one in the position to do it. Start with a state. Publicly funded state elections in one state would do more than a decade of the bully pulpit.
It's a very "white people problems" stance to argue that said pulpit and position's sole goal should be this relatively arcane issue. The advancement of civil rights does far more good, for far more people, with far more immediacy.
The same system we have today, with majority democrats instead of majority republicans, will advance, albeit slowly, progressive issues. Under the republicans, it will regress them.
There aren't other options, and there are things far more important to the real lives of individual people than money in politics.
While I agree we have more important problems to be solving, Civil rights is probably the best example but there are countless others, I simply think that any solution offered by our current and extremely corrupt system will come with a taint, because any solution is going to have to be piggybacked on some other horseshit or have a clause where it has to keep getting renewed or any number of other corrupt things that are outright commonplace in our current system.
Now I really do respect what Hilary is trying to do and what you're advocating, that is to say: doing the best we can with what we have, or trying to do the most good we can using corrupt means. I do not agree that it's the way forward.
While governmental corruption (especially dependence corruption) isn't our most pressing problem, it has to be our first problem solved. Without it being solved all other problems will be hobbled and tied up in BS.
I fully advocate for doing this in a state. I donated more than I could spare to MAYDAY.US. But I find myself wanting to throw every resource I can at this. The president may not be the best tool for the job but it's a resource.
As to this being white people problems, yeah, I see the image, this is a fairly privileged white kid saying to a whole country of people who have real problems, "I know what's best for you, what you need is more representative government". And yet there it is, I can't help it. I truly believe that what they want, in this system, they'll only get with strings attached.
I'm very anti strings and the only way that's happening is if the government is beholden to the people and to the people alone.
Comments
I am genuinely sorry if this makes you uncomforable. Feel free not to respond. However, this is what I feel us meaningful discourse. It helps to broaden and deepen understanding, which informs the actions of those involved to, one hopes, take action to prevent unneccessary bloodshed. I am sincerely interested in your responses.
EDIT: Bruce Sterling's thoughts on Trump and Clinton.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/04/trump-backers-feel-played-as-wikileaks-fails-to-come-through-on-october-surprise/
That is all.
Edit: This wasn't meant as a personal attack, just a call for ensuring that political opinions are specific and supported, particularly when it comes to Hillary Clinton. I won't deny that there are valid criticisms of her policies and political history, but the vague Clinton bashing has melded with decidedly sexist attitudes. I truly want a meaningful discussion, full of critiques, facts, and supported opinions. It is the very lack of such discourse that allows for Trump to exist as a viable candidate and for Clinton to be seen as a great satan.
My only valid criticisms about Clinton are:
1) Not liberal enough for me
2) Isn't making getting money out of politics her sole priority (though I'm having a hard time holding that against her)
She isn't super-liberal and she's changed her position over the years but I rather her change her mind than cling to outdated positions.
What I mean is be for publicly funded elections what Obama was for healthcare. Push it through despite the whining and bitching of the opposition. And no baby's first like the ACA. Allotted sums, up to a maximum, equal among contenders, no fundraising.
It was a Republican administration that put Roberts on the bench that made Citizens United possible, as well as neutering the Voting rights act. We're already seeing the result of the latter in Republican controlled states.
Republicans blocking some nonsense is a roadblock. I have faith that with her incredible competency and years of experience, that she'll manage to overcome roadblocks as they crop up.
Civil rights is easily more important than that. A corrupt system can advance or regress civil rights: its corruption is an orthogonal problem. Our current system has advanced civil rights profoundly. Slower than many of us hope or expect, but faster than most other systems in the world.
Making a more "fair" system is a noble goal. But it's literally impossible to do it as your sole focus. Further, the president isn't even the one in the position to do it. Start with a state. Publicly funded state elections in one state would do more than a decade of the bully pulpit.
It's a very "white people problems" stance to argue that said pulpit and position's sole goal should be this relatively arcane issue. The advancement of civil rights does far more good, for far more people, with far more immediacy.
The same system we have today, with majority democrats instead of majority republicans, will advance, albeit slowly, progressive issues. Under the republicans, it will regress them.
There aren't other options, and there are things far more important to the real lives of individual people than money in politics.
Now I really do respect what Hilary is trying to do and what you're advocating, that is to say: doing the best we can with what we have, or trying to do the most good we can using corrupt means. I do not agree that it's the way forward.
While governmental corruption (especially dependence corruption) isn't our most pressing problem, it has to be our first problem solved. Without it being solved all other problems will be hobbled and tied up in BS.
I fully advocate for doing this in a state. I donated more than I could spare to MAYDAY.US. But I find myself wanting to throw every resource I can at this. The president may not be the best tool for the job but it's a resource.
As to this being white people problems, yeah, I see the image, this is a fairly privileged white kid saying to a whole country of people who have real problems, "I know what's best for you, what you need is more representative government". And yet there it is, I can't help it. I truly believe that what they want, in this system, they'll only get with strings attached.
I'm very anti strings and the only way that's happening is if the government is beholden to the people and to the people alone.
The people want terrible things.