Support NeoGAF

[Bam Bam Baklava]

He's no dove, but he didn't vote for Iraq and is certainly less of a warmonger than Clinton of all people.

Parroting didn't vote for Iraq all day isn't about to change that they would not be as different as you claim them to be. Both would pretty much just continue Obama's policy.

 

[NeoXChaos]

How could Hillary Lose?

‘The idea that Clinton has ever been a significant general election favorite was and is off-base’
By Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, and Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball.

Anything can happen in politics. Heavy favorites lose—not often, but at least as frequently as a Supermoon. Just on the Democratic side, we remember in 1972 when Ed Muskie was a lock for the presidential nomination, or more recently, Hillary Clinton herself in 2008.
So we can all come up with anti-Hillary scenarios for 2016. She could face indictment or health problems or the accumulated burden of two decades at the top of the heap might make her buckle. But this time Clinton’s advantages—her organization, her support from party leaders and her unique chance to make history—are towering. We still bet on her to become the standard-bearer, even if Joe Biden gets in and more so if he doesn’t. If despite all this, Clinton loses anyway, she will have squandered some of the biggest pluses any non-incumbent has had going into a modern nomination contest.
The general election is a different story: It’s anyone’s game, subject to the whims of the economy, world events, and of course the choices of the two parties in the primaries. The idea that Clinton has ever been a significant general election favorite was and is off-base: While there are demographic trends moving in the Democrats’ favor, it’s not clear she can exploit them as well as Barack Obama did, and she has to combat a generic desire for change after eight years of a Democratic president in a political environment that may or may not be favorable to her.

‘Her fate is in the hands of investigators and the resident of the One Observatory Circle’
By Sean Trende, senior elections analyst for RealClearPolitics.
Whether or not Secretary of State Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee is largely out of her hands. This presents her with a good news/bad news situation. The good news is that her destiny is not in her current opponents’ hands either. As of this writing, she still seems on track to win Iowa, and even if Sen. Sanders were to pull off the unlikely upset there (and hold on in New Hampshire), she has something of a firewall with the heavily nonwhite Southern states that follow. Instead—and this is the bad news—her fate is in the hands of investigators and the resident of the One Observatory Circle. This is what could derail her: additional unhelpful stories surfacing regarding her email server and a decision from Vice President Biden to enter the race. Even then, there would probably have to be additional shoes dropping, such as an indictment or a presidential endorsement of one of her opponents (a possibility that has been left open).
The general election is in many ways out of her hands as well. She has the necessary tools in place to run a winning campaign; she meets the basic threshold of credibility (this is untrue of some of her GOP opponents). But the president’s job approval and the state of the economy are not within her control, and both are critical data points for the general election. Right now both are mediocre, and point toward a close election. An uptick in these indicators would probably put the Clintons back in the White House. A downturn? She would probably have to root for Republican primary voters give her a flawed opponent.

‘Clinton appears to have wrapped up … the nomination months ago’
By Jonathan Bernstein, political scientist and Bloomberg View columnist covering U.S. politics.
Hillary Clinton appears to have wrapped up the support of Democratic Party actors—and therefore the nomination—months ago. There’s no evidence so far of any change, and it would probably take something catastrophic for her to give back a nomination she’s already won. Yes, the enthusiasm among some Democrats for Bernie Sanders is real, but no more real than Howard Dean’s support in 2004, which wound up with him winning exactly one state. If something unexpected does happen to Clinton, Joe Biden has positioned himself well for the role of understudy.
As for the general election, candidates just aren’t as important as “fundamentals” such as the condition of the economy, whether people think the president is doing a good job and (perhaps) the small disadvantage for a party after two terms in the White House. By next fall, we’ll probably have gone through three or more cycles of Hillary Clinton scandals that Republicans and some in the media will be sure to finish her off, but in reality, voters will be affected a lot more by whether their paychecks are steady and steadily larger—or not. As of now, the general election is probably either a toss-up or perhaps slightly favors Republicans.

She loses if enough Democrats conclude she can’t win.’
By Jeff Greenfield, five-time Emmy-winning network television analyst and author.
Could Hillary Clinton lose the nomination? Put aside “Black Swan” matters—illness, injury, family crisis, revelation of disqualifying scandals—and she loses if enough Democrats conclude she can’t win. If it’s still true that “The Party Decides,” doubts that grow among “the party” would give the one credible challenger, Biden, a compelling argument should he enter the race. (See my piece in The Daily Beast to this effect.) Remember—back in 2008, one of the less-remembered but critical factors in the primary was the willingness of prominent Democratic women—Gov. Napolitano, Gov. Sebelius, Sen. McCaskill, Caroline Kennedy—to back Obama over Clinton. If an “I love her but she can’t win” sentiment builds to the point that the gender card becomes less important, that could be fatal.
Could she lose in November? To borrow from Donald Rumsfeld there are lots of “known unknowns” here—direction of the economy, Obama’s approval ratings, consumer confidence, international crises—and perhaps the biggest one: who will turn out? The Democrats supposedly have a big advantage in presidential years because “their” voters—blacks, Hispanics, younger voters—turn out. But have the past eight years been kind to younger voters economically? (They voted for Obama in 2012 by reduced margins.) Will blacks turn out in higher percentages than whites, as they did in 2012, if an African-American is not on the ticket? And could Clinton lose whites by even bigger margins than Obama did? Current numbers say she could. Even marginal shifts could turn states red (Obama own Florida by less than 1 percent; Ohio by less than 3).

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/how-could-hillary-clinton-lose-213233#ixzz3oIpSDK4s

 

[Brawndo Addict]

There's no doubt that Obama and Hillary are both treated differently because of their race/gender. There's not an on/off switch to racism/sexism that gets shut down once someone gains enough social recognition. The problem is that there's not much to do with that knowledge in terms of bridging the general to the specific (outside of something super blatant). It's kind of like global warming, you can never say it caused any storm in particular, but you can say it is increasing the conditions that allow storms to happen.

In terms of cult of personalities, I dunno. The West's hyper-individualistic culture is at the root of a lot of modern interpersonal and societal conflict, but I'm not sure how that applies to the political scene. I don't doubt that there are celebrity-defender esque people out there, but I think that people latch onto particular candidates because it represents the candidate *they* would most be like if they were a politician. So it's not so much that you insulted their hero, it's that you insulted someone who is a surrogate for themselves. The attack becomes personal not because they're obsessed with Candidate, but because Candidate is an expression of their own individual values. So if you're against Candidate, then you're against their personal beliefs and they must defend themselves by extension.

 

[Mike M]

He's no dove, but he didn't vote for Iraq

That's a pretty meaningless point in his favor since he wasn't elected to the Senate until 2006.

 

[Daniel B·]

I don't like anyone disrespecting my queeen........jk.

Woman candidates have surely been treated similar to Hillary but her treatment is 100x more visceral. I don't understand the disdain for her specifically. I see flip-flopper being thrown around and corporate shill but so is every other male counterpart that have run for office. If she was Hillary Jones and not Hillary Clinton I wonder if she would be receiving the same treatment.

Is it a man thing? Is is conspiracy theories? Would Warren receive the same hatred if she ran?

Obama made people go crazy so I guess Hillary will to if she gets there.

It's very simple. Given Obama's Presidency, I don't believe, for a second, that she would govern in the best interests of the vast majority of American's, our country and our planet and that includes being far too timid on issues that demand decisive action, such as on Global Warming and Glass-Steagall (not planing on undoing your Husband's conceded screwup, eh?).

I say, why not give a progressive, non-establishment politician a try, whether it's an Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, who voluntarily reject the influence of big money, and so just put forward proposals that benefit almost everyone.

If we take Bernie all the way, which given the weak field of Republican contenders, is entirely conceivable, even with the billions from their donors (big money doesn't always win ), that will just be the start of reclaiming our country from the establishment players. Next step, will be sweeping away the Republican roadblock, in the House, who have spent the last four years doing almost nothing, except trying to repeal Obamacare (over fifty times - pathetic!).

So, if we reclaim the House and the Senate, will Bernie get all his proposals passed, in full? No, but, IMO, that's a good thing, as he may well have to move somewhat towards the center, to make his policies sufficiently palatable (to House and Senate members), such as on taxation.

 

[curlyfriski]

Parroting didn't vote for Iraq all day isn't about to change that they would not be as different as you claim them to be. Both would pretty much just continue Obama's policy.

Hillary Clinton: 'Failure' to Help Syrian Rebels Led to the Rise of ISIS
Gee, sounds like she's more willing to intervene in foreign conflicts than Obama.
Edit: Also, the erasure of Iraq as an event of significance is pretty gross. She stumped for a horrible, criminal, stupid war. That means something.

That's a pretty meaningless point in his favor since he wasn't elected to the Senate until 2006.

Sanders was in the House since 1990.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Hillary Clinton: 'Failure' to Help Syrian Rebels Led to the Rise of ISIS
Gee, sounds like she's more willing to intervene in foreign conflicts than Obama.

Now you're just cherry picking quotes and spinning them with your own narrative. Helping rebels means a thousand different things. Now you're talking about the mere willingness to intervene in foreign conflicts as being unacceptably hawkish.

Given the havoc that ISIS has already caused and the refugee wave that is gripping Europe, was she wrong?

 

[curlyfriski]

Now you're just cherry picking quotes and spinning them with your own narrative. Helping rebels means a thousand different things. Now you're talking about the mere willingness to intervene in foreign conflicts as being unacceptably hawkish.

Given the havoc that ISIS has already caused and the refugee wave that is gripping Europe, was she wrong?

Was giving more aid to the Syrian "moderates" a bad idea, when all the aid we did give them ended up in the hands of Islamic extremists, who often turned out to be the "moderates" we liked in the first place

Hmmmm I'll have to give it some thought

Edit: Also, more cherrypicking!

"We need to try to set up and enforce a no-fly zone to try to stop the outflow of refugees so people can stay at home," Clinton said.
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Clinton's chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, opposes a unilateral American no-fly zone in Syria, saying it could get the U.S. more deeply involved in civil war, leading to a "never-ending U.S. entanglement in that region."

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Was giving more aid to the Syrian "moderates" a bad idea, when all the aid we did give them ended up in the hands of Islamic extremists, who often turned out to be the "moderates" we liked in the first place

Hmmmm I'll have to give it some thought

Once again you discount whatever credible and viable opposition there was at the time before 20 different extremists sects took over. Of course, if you or Sanders has a good alternative that would end up in a satisfactory results I'm sure we're all ears.

It was easy when you could just preach isolationism as the answer but now that millions of people are pouring into Europe it's harder to just look the other way.

Seems like you just want to argue fancy hyperbolic talking points.

Edit: Also, more cherrypicking!

It's easy to oppose stuff isn't it.

 

[Makai]

Any chance O'Malley, Webb, Chafee or Lessig gain any significant traction after the debate? Seems unlikely. Mayyyyyyybe O'Malley.

 

[Mike M]

Sanders was in the House since 1990.

Derp. For some reason I thought he was in Vermont's state legislature.

 

[curlyfriski]

Once again you discount whatever credible and viable opposition there was at the time before 20 different extremists sects took over. Of course, if you or Sanders has a good alternative that would end up in a satisfactory results I'm sure we're all ears.

It was easy when you could just preach isolationism as the answer but now that millions of people are pouring into Europe it's harder to just look the other way.

Seems like you just want to argue fancy hyperbolic talking points.



It's easy to oppose stuff isn't it.

You've got to get in early on vicious sectarian civil wars, or else all the good opposition groups will get snatched up! I'm sure we'll do better next time.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I was going to reply to this post, then I realized it contained nothing at all

It's okay to admit you've run out of talking points and can't discuss substance. I'll understand.

 

[Ecotic]

He's no dove, but he didn't vote for Iraq and is certainly less of a warmonger than Clinton of all people.

On this I have no doubt. I envision Hillary being quite an interventionist any time there's room for America to act short of an Iraq style all-in. It's really just a matter or personal emphasis, with Sanders it's pretty clear he thinks America's priority is on the domestic front and he'll surely think foreign adventures will jeopardize and distract from progress at home. Hillary clearly has that American exceptionalism messianic streak in her.

 

[Third Strike]

Any chance O'Malley, Webb, Chafee or Lessig gain any significant traction after the debate? Seems unlikely. Mayyyyyyybe O'Malley.

They have no where to go but up. They will not have a real impact on Clinton or Sanders' numbers, but they will see an increase in the polls. O'Malley will likely be the last one standing, among those three.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

On this I have no doubt. I envision Hillary being quite an interventionist any time there's room for America to act short of an Iraq style all-in. It's really just a matter or personal emphasis, with Sanders it's pretty clear he thinks America's priority is on the domestic front and he'll surely think foreign adventures will jeopardize and distract from progress at home. Hillary clearly has that American exceptionalism messianic streak in her.

I don't see how this deviates greatly from Obama who is pretty much up for anything but ground troop commitments. I also don't see where Sanders deviates greatly from Obama that is actually viable and not just empty political promises.

 

[B-Dubs]

They have no where to go but up. They will not have a real impact on Clinton or Sanders' numbers, but they will see an increase in the polls. O'Malley will likely be the last one standing, among those three.

I doubt any one of them will see a significant increase unless Sanders or Hillary really flub the debate.

 

[kingkitty]

I'm excited to see Chafee talk. Will he mention the metric system again? We'll find out soon.

 

[curlyfriski]

It's okay to admit you've run out of talking points and can't discuss substance. I'll understand.

Here is my policy prescription for stopping the Syrian refugee crisis, the rise of ISIS, and the thousand other problems in the Middle East that need solving: don't invade Iraq.

 

[B-Dubs]

Here is my policy prescription for stopping the Syrian refugee crisis, the rise of ISIS, and the thousand other problems in the Middle East that need solving: don't invade Iraq.

That doesn't really help though.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Here is my policy prescription for stopping the Syrian refugee crisis, the rise of ISIS, and the thousand other problems in the Middle East that need solving: don't invade Iraq.

Got that time machine ready Marty McFly?

 

[shinra-bansho]

You should get working on that time machine then.

 

[dramatis]

Any chance O'Malley, Webb, Chafee or Lessig gain any significant traction after the debate? Seems unlikely. Mayyyyyyybe O'Malley.

Slate Gabfest did a discussion podcast about what they expect the candidates individually would need to do to gain.

But the actual results? I think something unexpectedly good or bad will have to happen at the debates for much change.

Imagine if in the middle of the debate Biden burst through the back wall with sunglasses on and started throwing money.

 

[Makai]

I'm excited to see Chafee talk. Will he mention the metric system again? We'll find out soon.

Just watched a clip of Chafee. His eyes are locked on the index card on his podium.

 

[kingkitty]

Just watched a clip of Chafee. His eyes are locked on the index card on his podium.

better than Obummer using a teleprompter. #chafee2016

 

[curlyfriski]

You should get working on that time machine then.

Oh darn, I knew there was a flaw. More bombings then.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Here is my policy prescription for stopping the Syrian refugee crisis, the rise of ISIS, and the thousand other problems in the Middle East that need solving: don't invade Iraq.

This post was dumb, and you should feel dumb. Man accuses you of empty rhetoric and you're like "but mah Iraq."

 

[shinra-bansho]

Welcome to reality?

The US invaded Iraq under false pretenses, created a failed state and power vacuum. In which, a terrorist organisation assumed control of vast swathes of territory.

It's a mess.

Some form of intervention in the mess, or no form of intervention, are options.

"Don't invade Iraq." is nonsense. And repeated allusion to a vote that over half the Democratic Senate caucus supported including the current VP, Sec State and Minority leader, is frankly nothing more than distraction.

 

[B-Dubs]

Oh darn, I knew there was a flaw. More bombings then.

Dude come on, you get called out for having no substance on the issue and you go "buh-buh-buh Iraq." You just proved his point.

 

[Ecotic]

I don't see how this deviates greatly from Obama who is pretty much up for anything but ground troop commitments. I also don't see where Sanders deviates greatly from Obama that is actually viable and not just empty political promises.

To me it's just a matter of observed reluctance. Obama has been open to intervention short of ground commitments, but he's always been so reluctant to do it. For example if I'm remembering right it took a U.N. vote to pull Obama into Libya. Sanders displayed good reluctance instincts in not wanting to go into Iraq. Whether it's been Iraq, Libya, or Syria Hillary has always shown the least threshold for intervention.

 

[curlyfriski]

This post was dumb, and you should feel dumb. Man accuses you of empty rhetoric and you're like "but mah Iraq."

I'll put it in very simple terms, since the point seems to be lost: if there is a "solution" to the mess in the Middle East is to stop thinking that the application of American power is, in itself, good, or that the American government is interested in doing "good" in the first place. You don't turn a civil war into a proxy war because you have humanitarian interests at heart, you do it because you wish to further your own narrow interests.

i don't say bu-bu-but Iraq because I'm stuck in the past. I bring up Iraq because it illustrates the fundamental failings of American policy in the region, which more recent and limited interventions in Libya and Yemen have only made more apparent. And as Shinra-Bansho noted, adherents of that policy are still very much holding the reins, and the main lesson they've taken from the debacle is to be less stupid in the future, but continue with the same basic ideology.

 

[FiggyCal]

Speaking of Hillary: http://nypost.com/2015/10/10/hillary-clintons-camp-she-could-have-a-serious-melt-down/

Hillary is furious — and while Clinton advisers think that may save her, it’s making the lives of those who work for her hell.

“Hillary’s been having screaming, child-like tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work,” says a campaign aide. “She thought the nomination was hers for the asking, but her mounting problems have been getting to her and she’s become shrill and, at times, even violent.”

In one incident, Hillary berated a low-level campaign worker for making a scheduling mistake. When the girl had the nerve to turn her back on Hillary and walk away, Hillary grabbed her arm.

Hillary’s anger may be stoked by fear — her poll numbers have slipped by 10 points in one week on the eve of the Democrat debate.

Bill Clinton and Hillary’s campaign team are concerned that her anger may surface at the wrong time. They are concerned that she could have a serious meltdown in front of TV cameras, which would make her look so out of control that voters would decide she doesn’t have the temperament to be commander in chief.

“We’re having some success in giving her some chill pills,” says a campaign adviser.
The goal is to channel her anger and make her focus on Republicans, not on her campaign aides and fellow Democrats.

“Hillary’s always at her most effective when her back is to the wall,” says one of her longtime political advisers. “After weeks of pounding and pummeling by the press, she’s mad as hell and isn’t going to take it any more.”

I don't know if this is a joke.

 

[Tarkus]

This Obama interview by Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes is a bit heated. Hell, I might even would call it stand-offish.

 

[Iolo]

Speaking of Hillary: http://nypost.com/2015/10/10/hillary-clintons-camp-she-could-have-a-serious-melt-down/

I don't know if this is a joke.

Without spoiling too much: yes, the New York Post is a joke.

 

[FiggyCal]

Without spoiling too much: yes, the New York Post is a joke.

It just seemed like bad reporting. I wasn't sure if it was an attempt at satire or not.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I'm sure people here would be fine with discussing the merits, implications and potential failings of a more isolationist US foreign policy if that's what you're advocating.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I'll put it in very simple terms, since the point seems to be lost: if there is a "solution" to the mess in the Middle East is to stop thinking that the application of American power is, in itself, good, or that the American government is interested in doing "good" in the first place. You don't turn a civil war into a proxy war because you have humanitarian interests at heart, you do it because you wish to further your own narrow interests.

i don't say bu-bu-but Iraq because I'm stuck in the past. I bring up Iraq because it illustrates the fundamental failings of American policy in the region, which more recent and limited interventions in Libya and Yemen have only made more apparent. And as Shinra-Bansho noted, adherents of that policy are still very much holding the reins, and the main lesson they've taken from the debacle is to be less stupid in the future, but continue with the same basic ideology.

If your point is to not invade relatively stable countries and throw them into chaos then you're probably right. But Syria at this stage is not that at all. All Clinton is doing is exploring possible solutions to the situation at hand, not displaying her endless bloodlust for creating new unnecessary conflicts.

 

[dramatis]

I'll put it in very simple terms, since the point seems to be lost: if there is a "solution" to the mess in the Middle East is to stop thinking that the application of American power is, in itself, good, or that the American government is interested in doing "good" in the first place. You don't turn a civil war into a proxy war because you have humanitarian interests at heart, you do it because you wish to further your own narrow interests.

i don't say bu-bu-but Iraq because I'm stuck in the past. I bring up Iraq because it illustrates the fundamental failings of American policy in the region, which more recent and limited interventions in Libya and Yemen have only made more apparent. And as Shinra-Bansho noted, adherents of that policy are still very much holding the reins, and the main lesson they've taken from the debacle is to be less stupid in the future, but continue with the same basic ideology.

But you haven't presented a solution to anything.

Advocating for a change in ideology? What does that do in terms of practical efforts? The fixation on ideology over practical answers is problematic because all it does is justify inaction. People complain when we don't act (Syrian refugees). People complain when we do act. Of course we can't claim that all American intervention is good. But continuing to seek the answer is better than folding your arms and claiming righteousness.

Your point can't be conveyed by simply saying, "Don't invade Iraq." Because it already happened. So now what? "It has nothing to do with me, so just pull out and let them deal with the shit we left them? Because Americans suck at this?"

There is no singular motivation for something as complex as foreign policy. Narrow interests, genuine desires to do good, protecting the nation, these are all reasons jumbled together into any action taken internationally. Boiling it down to simple points doesn't work.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

This Obama interview by Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes is a bit heated. Hell, I might even would call it stand-offish.

It's got to be frustrating for the president. Krofts intention or not he's presenting neo con criticism as unimpeachable fact and when you limit the conversation to that you have to forcefully change the framing which I think is what Obama was trying to do

 

[dramatis]

It just seemed like bad reporting. I wasn't sure if it was an attempt at satire or not.

Unfortunately, it's not satire. Yesterday there was this:

"You've thrown us in the crap again!" Hillary screamed. "I've never been this pissed off at you! I don't think you really want me to be president."

Bill looked up over the rim of his eyeglasses, which were perched on the tip of his nose.

"Calm down," he said.

His air of nonchalance only made Hillary angrier, and with a sweeping motion of her arm, she shoved everything off the top of his desk, sending papers and an expensive piece of Chihuly blown glass flying onto the floor.

"Jesus!" Bill said.

He got up to retrieve the Chihuly sculpture, which fortunately wasn't damaged. He put it carefully back on his desk. He had one of the largest private collections of Chihuly glass in the country.

"You don't care about anything but that fucking piece of glass," Hillary said.

This would be a pretty great soap opera. We need it all in Spanish though.

 

[B-Dubs]

It just seemed like bad reporting. I wasn't sure if it was an attempt at satire or not.

The NYPost isn't sophisticated enough for that.

 

[Makai]

Slate Gabfest did a discussion podcast about what they expect the candidates individually would need to do to gain.

But the actual results? I think something unexpectedly good or bad will have to happen at the debates for much change.

Imagine if in the middle of the debate Biden burst through the back wall with sunglasses on and started throwing money.

This is pretty good. Thanks.

 

[Tarkus]

Obama is confident that if he could run again, he would get a third term. Can't say I disagree with him there.

Steve Kroft is wearing a two-button suit jacket with both buttons fastened. His credibility is instantly dismissed with me.

 

[Poodlestrike]

The NYPost isn't sophisticated enough for that.

I like the way John Mulaney described the Post. It's like having somebody describe the news to you who'd only had another paper described to them over the phone.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

Obama is confident that if he could run again, he would get a third term. Can't say I disagree with him there.

Obama would cruise to a third term against any one in the Republican field and have a very good chance to picking up NC as well. Hopefully he fully supports HRC (or Sanders) next year.

 

[curlyfriski]

But you haven't presented a solution to anything.

Advocating for a change in ideology? What does that do in terms of practical efforts? The fixation on ideology over practical answers is problematic because all it does is justify inaction. People complain when we don't act (Syrian refugees). People complain when we do act. Of course we can't claim that all American intervention is good. But continuing to seek the answer is better than folding your arms and claiming righteousness.

Your point can't be conveyed by simply saying, "Don't invade Iraq." Because it already happened. So now what? "It has nothing to do with me, so just pull out and let them deal with the shit we left them? Because Americans suck at this?"

There is no singular motivation for something as complex as foreign policy. Narrow interests, genuine desires to do good, protecting the nation, these are all reasons jumbled together into any action taken internationally. Boiling it down to simple points doesn't work.

Ignoring ideology is intentionally blinding yourself. Yes, motivations are complicated and multifaceted, but that doesn't mean they should be ignored. This point seems fundamental to me.

Certainly, there are actions that I support. Taking more refugees, working for a diplomatic solution to the conflict, putting pressure on our allies to stop inflaming sectarian divisions in the region. But the true question isn't whether I want these things to happen, but what actions I can see the American state taking. If it's a choice between negative action and inaction, then of course I prefer inaction.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Sounds like Obama got owned on 60 Minutes. It's stunning seeing liberals so focused on climate change, an issue no one gives a fuck about (outside of liberals). I guess it's the only area he can have any impact on today, so he wants to run the score up on his list of "accomplishments." But still, with the world burning, pointing to climate change as your leadership example seems laughable.

 

[Retromelon]

But still, with the world burning, pointing to climate change as your leadership example seems laughable.

I'll bet you were cackling over your keyboard as you typed that part

No way thats unintentional

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Sounds like Obama got owned on 60 Minutes. It's stunning seeing liberals so focused on climate change, an issue no one gives a fuck about (outside of liberals). I guess it's the only area he can have any impact on today, so he wants to run the score up on his list of "accomplishments." But still, with the world burning, pointing to climate change as your leadership example seems laughable.

What do you want him to say. Yeah we can just bomb some more and give weapons and diplomatic cover to repressive regimes?

That's the neocons plan. He's attempting to get away from that (with it obviously being tough to get away from completely).

They questions were pretty much "why haven't you've solved the problems" and "Putin's done something so he's calling you out" its grade level understanding of geopolitics but our media has got a mindset that the US can fix things through force of will.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'll bet you were cackling over your keyboard as you typed that part

No way thats unintentional

It's a typical troll give away. He always peppers GOP talking points in his posts.