|
Majorian posted:By your logic, Kissinger can't possibly have been a hawk, because he supported diplomacy with the USSR and China. The reality is, being a hawk doesn't require that you take a hawkish position on literally every issue. No loving poo poo dumbass, but calling someone wanting to bomb someone more because they believe they aren't currently bombing them at all is hawkish as gently caress. Majorian posted:Are you under the impression that I think criticisms of Sanders and his campaign are invalid? Because if so, you haven't been reading my posts. Get over yourself. That was about you not being able to take any criticism about Gabbard being a hawk. No one but you has brought up Sanders.
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:45 |
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:It was the best intelligence she had available to her, that's for sure. Mostly because W's administration actively lied to her and the other ninety-nine Senators. Yea pretty much, it's probably her worst decision she's made (and, ya know, she agrees with us on that) but the context around it was a good bit different than 'Clinton lusts for Arab blood, war declared'. WorldsStrongestNerd posted:Good God people. I thought it was common knowledge that Hillary is a left leaning centrist. She's not a progressive except in the sense that America is so right wing that anybody even slightly left gets mistaken for progressive. But so what? Being a little more hawkish than the average liberal isn't some kind of indictment against her. she's not, though. Like, I can say 'man I thought it was common knowledge that WorldsStrongestNerd fucks goats' but that doesn't actually make it true, that just makes me an idiot who has nothing to actually lean on other than 'heh, this is common knowledge, how can you not agree  '
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
WorldsStrongestNerd posted:Good God people. I thought it was common knowledge that Hillary is a left leaning centrist. She's not a progressive except in the sense that America is so right wing that anybody even slightly left gets mistaken for progressive. But so what? Being a little more hawkish than the average liberal isn't some kind of indictment against her. Common knowledge requires evidence, you keep saying it's true doesn't make it true. One vote on Iraq that she did for the express purpose of getting funding for 9/11 repairs and has since regretting does not invalidate her 25+ years of progressive policies. I've never seen a politician projected on so much, like earlier someone said that her Senate voting record was centrist but did not provide a single example, hell her senate votes lined up with Bernie Sanders like 90% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:but she wants us to bomb them MORE, that's the point. Judging from what she said, it looks to me like she was under the impression that the U.S. isn't bombing al-Nusra at all - thus my calling her uninformed. I mean, you're right, "we should be bombing al-Nusra" is automatically a more hawkish position than "we should not be bombing al-Nusra." But I think that's kind of offset by the fact that she opposed the entire intervention in the first place. WorldsStrongestNerd posted:Good God people. I thought it was common knowledge that Hillary is a left leaning centrist. She's not a progressive except in the sense that America is so right wing that anybody even slightly left gets mistaken for progressive. But so what? Being a little more hawkish than the average liberal isn't some kind of indictment against her.  The problem is, folks here can't even say that much without the zoux crowd exploding into a frothing rage.socialsecurity posted:Common knowledge requires evidence, you keep saying it's true doesn't make it true. One vote on Iraq that she did for the express purpose of getting funding for 9/11 repairs and has since regretting does not invalidate her 25+ years of progressive policies. No, but when you add stuff like the Honduras coup, the Libya intervention, her relative inflexibility with regard to Iran's nuclear program, etc, it does paint the picture of someone who's maybe a little too comfortable with the use of U.S. hard power.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
iospace posted:Speaking of the military! Straight up promising to create fewer jobs by just hiring fewer, cheaper replacements for outgoing employees. Truly the businessman we need to run this country.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:27
|
|
emdash
|
WorldsStrongestNerd posted:America is so right wing that anybody even slightly left gets mistaken for progressive. This is also a strange sentiment that hasn't really been grounded in reality for a while.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
i like how we are going to simultaneously increase and decrease the military budget
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
That Old Tree posted:Straight up promising to create fewer jobs by just hiring fewer, cheaper replacements for outgoing employees. Truly the businessman we need to run this country. I really, really hope there was at least one person in that crowd that started cheering at "responsible workforce attrition" and then had a record scratch moment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
"Common sense reforms that reduce government waste" is such a bs line that the right always uses when they want to make big promises without raising taxes. I have never once seen it work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Whose "common knowledge" are we talking about, because on the right it's common knowledge that she's a lesbian commie who wants to take all of the guns and tax your taxes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Judging from what she said, it looks to me like she was under the impression that the U.S. isn't bombing al-Nusra at all - thus my calling her uninformed. She wanted more bombings, she's very informed about what's happening, she wasn't uninformed she was lying, you know, like everyone else in her position who says 'we're not bombing ISIS' does, do you think all of them are just unifmormed too? Like, do you think someone whispered 'actually we have been bombing' and she went 'oh noooo but I just said we aren't. Oh I better get back up and apologize because that looks really bad' or what? Also how does Honduras make Hillary a 'hawk', should we have...stopped the coup?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Has this been discussed at all? Civil confinement like this was upheld by the Supreme Court about 20 years ago, Kansas v Hendricks
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:No loving poo poo dumbass, Don't do this. I'm being respectful of your argument; there's no need for you to make personal attacks. quote:but calling someone wanting to bomb someone more because they believe they aren't currently bombing them at all is hawkish as gently caress. I just admitted it was a hawkish position. Again, I think it's at least partially offset by the fact that she opposed the intervention in the first place, combined with the fact that she doesn't have a long pattern of supporting U.S. interventions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
^^She didn't oppose it first! She said 'we need to do more' and THEN when we started doing more she 'opposed' it because she's a loving cowardsocialsecurity posted:"Common sense reforms that reduce government waste" is such a bs line that the right always uses when they want to make big promises without raising taxes. I have never once seen it work. haha I just realized on the same page we're making fun of Trump saying that stupid line we have a 'progressive' talking about how it's just common knowledge that everyone actually agrees with him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Majorian posted:No, but when you add stuff like the Honduras coup, the Libya intervention, her relative inflexibility with regard to Iran's nuclear program, etc, it does paint the picture of someone who's maybe a little too comfortable with the use of U.S. hard power. So Obama's a hawk now?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
If Hillary isn't a hawk then why did she eat my dog? Edit: BI NOW GAY LATER posted:So Obama's a hawk now? Obama's definitely a hawk see my post above.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
BROCK LESBIAN posted:If Hillary isn't a hawk then why did she eat my dog? she was hungry and your dog wandered into her hunting grounds, this is on you man 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i like how we are going to simultaneously increase and decrease the military budget Fire all of Are Troops so that we can pay more for 350 battleships that make the H44 design study look modest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
quote:I will ask that savings be accomplished through common sense reforms that eliminate government waste and budget gimmicks and that protect, absolutely protect hard earned benefits for Americans So he wants to eliminate waste and gimmicks that protect benefits for Americans?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
BROCK LESBIAN posted:If Hillary isn't a hawk then why did she eat my dog? You dork she's an owl not a hawk
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Why the gently caress does it matter if Hillary isn't a 'progressive' by other nations standards? Where Hillary would fall into German or UK politics really doesn't matter, what matters is where she stands within to American politics, which is left. She's not a centrist in the context of politics today.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:She wanted more bombings, she's very informed about what's happening, she wasn't uninformed she was lying I don't know how you could possibly ascertain that. Are you under the impression that all members of Congress are well-informed all the time? If so, let me introduce you to a guy named Louie Gohmert. In any case, my point was not to defend Tulsi Gabbard. I think she's maybe not the brightest person, and her position on bombing al-Nusra was wrong, as I've acknowledged. My point in this discussion is to show that there is basis for calling Clinton's foreign policy hawkish. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:So Obama's a hawk now? It depends on where you put the bar, but he definitely has some hawkish positions. I don't think it's unfair to say that Clinton is more hawkish than he is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
I really feel the candidate proposing a massive new entitlement program granting everyone free college, massive increases in immigration, tough new environmental regulations, a continued effort to normalize relations with Cuba and Iran, and continued growth of the welfare state is, at best, a "centrist" ~ An Idiot.Majorian posted:It depends on where you put the bar, but he definitely has some hawkish positions. I don't think it's unfair to say that Clinton is more hawkish than he is. But by any other objective measure she is far less hawkish, and far more likely to engage in diplomacy than, you know the entire Republican party, and a good deal of her own party.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't know how you could possibly ascertain that. Are you under the impression that all members of Congress are well-informed all the time? If so, let me introduce you to a guy named Louie Gohmert. but there isn't, and you absolutely were defending her with that stupid rear end 'no no she's just incredibly stupid not lying' defense. You're just doing the thing you always do where you make poo poo up and then get called on it and go 'well it doesn't matter anyway I wasn't REALLY talking about that'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
sarmhan posted:Why the gently caress does it matter if Hillary isn't a 'progressive' by other nations standards? Where Hillary would fall into German or UK politics really doesn't matter, what matters is where she stands within to American politics, which is left. She's not a centrist in the context of politics today. it's really important to split these hairs so i can argue with goons about how wrong everyone but me is
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:^^She didn't oppose it first! She said 'we need to do more' and THEN when we started doing more she 'opposed' it because she's a loving coward I just posted an op-ed from her from 2013 in which she flat-out says intervention is a bad idea, two years before her al-Nusra comments.  Tatum Girlparts posted:but there isn't, and you absolutely were defending her with that stupid rear end 'no no she's just incredibly stupid not lying' defense. You're just doing the thing you always do where you make poo poo up and then get called on it and go 'well it doesn't matter anyway I wasn't REALLY talking about that'. Except I'm not making poo poo up. I've actually substantiated my argument pretty clearly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Honestly, if there are still people who think that there are tons of "common sense" reforms left after 30+ years of budget and tax cuts and that line being hauled out every election, they must be ripe for con arti... ...oh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
BROCK LESBIAN posted:If Hillary isn't a hawk then why did she eat my dog? Only a lovely dog gets eaten by a hawk.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I just posted an op-ed from her from 2013 in which she flat-out says intervention is a bad idea, two years before her al-Nusra comments. and before that she was handwringing about how oh that darn Obama why won't he get SERIOUS about the war on terror.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Don't do this. I'm being respectful of your argument; there's no need for you to make personal attacks. No, respecting the augment would be not being dumb during it. Majorian posted:I just admitted it was a hawkish position. Again, I think it's at least partially offset by the fact that she opposed the intervention in the first place, combined with the fact that she doesn't have a long pattern of supporting U.S. interventions. No she loving didn't oppose the intervention, stop being dumb. And yes Clinton has supported US interventions, she's also opposed them as well but you seem to only care about the times she's been in favor of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Stretch Marx posted:Only a lovely dog gets eaten by a hawk. Real dogs are devoured by eagles and condors
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:and before that she was handwringing about how oh that darn Obama why won't he get SERIOUS about the war on terror. When? A Winner is Jew posted:No she loving didn't oppose the intervention, stop being dumb. Again, yes she did. quote:And yes Clinton has supported US interventions, she's also opposed them as well but you seem to only care about the times she's been in favor of them. So again, by your logic, Kissinger is not a hawk?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Okay well ASIDE from the times that she said violence is cool and necessary and that we should flex out muscle in the region like Putin-san is doing, prove to me that Gabbard is hawkish Oh and Clinton is a centrist inasfar as Bernie is
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Majorian posted:So again, by your logic, Kissinger is not a hawk? This is such a colossally stupid argument to make and you know it. Kissinger was absolutely an unabashed hawk for whom diplomacy was only an extension of conflict through other means. Clinton might be more likely to use hard power than Obama, but then most people who've been involved in US foreign affairs are more hawkish than candidate-Obama*.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Okay well ASIDE from the times that she said violence is cool and necessary and that we should flex out muscle in the region like Putin-san is doing, prove to me that Gabbard is hawkish Again, it was a hawkish position on Gabbard's part. My point is that Clinton seems considerably more comfortable adopting hawkish positions than Gabbard, or, indeed, most progressive dems. I'm kind of amazed that this is a controversial point here. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:This is such a colossally stupid argument to make and you know it. Kissinger was absolutely an unabashed hawk for whom diplomacy was only an extension of conflict through other means. Clinton might be more likely to use hard power than Obama, but then most people who've been involved in US foreign affairs are more hawkish than candidate-Obama*. But she's noticeably more hawkish than non-candidate Obama too. That's not a reason to not vote for her, as I've said, but it is a pretty valid criticism of her platform. Also, I think you know that I'm not suggesting Clinton is as hawkish as Kissinger. I'm pointing out that the argument of, "Clinton doesn't support every single opportunity for intervention; therefore, not a hawk," is unconvincing. Majorian fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Anyway, sounds like a case could be made for both being hawkish, so being hawkish DOES NOT exclude one from progressive status since Gabbard has it. Clinton is way left of most everybody else on like literally every other issue, so it seems unfair to deny her progressive status This is all a thought exercise of course because people more liberal that Bernie were excluded because all progressive means is "kissed the ring" It's a meaningless designation if it includes Gabbard but not Brown
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Hillary Clinton is hummingbird if you watch her hands. Because she has Parkinson's. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Anyway, sounds like a case could be made for both being hawkish, so being hawkish DOES NOT exclude one from progressive status since Gabbard has it. Clinton is way left of most everybody else on like literally every other issue, so it seems unfair to deny her progressive status That's fine, I never said she shouldn't be considered "progressive" on those fronts. I'm happy that she's moved to the left on a lot of domestic issues. But it's kind of silly to dismiss criticisms of her as too hawkish out of hand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Again, it was a hawkish position on Gabbard's part. My point is that Clinton seems considerably more comfortable adopting hawkish positions than Gabbard, or, indeed, most progressive dems. I'm kind of amazed that this is a controversial point here. She may seem it but nobody seems to have substantiated it in a way that sets her apart from a gold standard progressive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:45 |
|
|
I'll never arzy about the results of the election, but while I used to be pretty sure that the worst case scenario for the debates was Trump not showing up and being vindicated by his followers for resisting mainstream convention, my new worst (and most likely) scenario is that he shows up and curbstomps Clinton just by being Trump. I can no longer see any scenario where Clinton "wins" the debates the same way Obama did, save Trump descending into a slavering, stuttering mess or outright vomiting on stage. If Clinton coughs or even shifts her weight wrong she'll instantly lose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:53
|
|
