Support NeoGAF

[User 463088]

Is going to fundraisers a better reason to leave the campaign trail?

Yup. Cause, you know, that's part of campaigning.

 

[royalan]

You are reading what I'm writing right, like you know I don't think Ted Cruz's policies are exactly the same? You keep listing policy details like it's some revelation when I've known about Ted Cruz's policies probably longer than you have, along with virtually everyone else in the thread.

Your original claim was that calling Hillary hawkish, which is a standard description of any politician a person might think is prone to conflict, was that Hillary described herself as advocating smart power, support of allies, unwillingness to spend american lives, and to only invade when it's for the greater good. Which are all things every candidate will claim before every conflict.

If you want to talk about the actual decisions she made that might get you somewhere, but up until this point the arguments you're making aren't that convincing.

You have brought up Ted Cruz three times now. My point is the two are so dissimilar that it makes no sense to even bring him up in any sort of relation to Hillary's foreign policy.

My original claim was that I don't understand why Hillary gets called hawkish among this current field, when her positions on foreign policy are considerably mild, especially when you compare them to what the Republicans are advocating. On its face, it just doesn't make sense to me.

Yup. Cause, you know, that's part of campaigning.

How dare she help raise money for down-ticket dems.

 

[Slayven]

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/ber...inton-lead-a-lot-of-that-came-from-the-south/

So...is this basically a dog whistle?

Nope but his supporters will turn it into one

This is kind of where I am

http://www.atlredline.com/i-m-with-her-i-guess-1769742021

Fire

Her twitter mentions will be a dumpster fire though

 

[excelsiorlef]

In the scenario that the republicans had locked up a nominee pretty fast would people really want republicans playing a crucial role in the democratic primaries? I don't think you should be able to switch immediately or if you could there should be a waiting period before immediately switching back

Exactly.

 

[Clefargle]

I haven't been following for that long but 6 months ago there weren't any votes. There's a reason Bernie rose and the other candidates sunk like a rock because he had an unprecedented system for financing and did great at debates. So he climbed up the polls at insane speeds. Hillary has it in the bag yes but it raises a lot of eyebrows that this guy went from a 3% to what 40%~? It's pretty crazy especially with DWS doing her darnedest to coronate Hillary as seamlessly as possible.

That's exactly my point. There was no real viable competitor to Clinton for most of 2015, yet without anything other than fundraising numbers the media pushed the "Omg this guy is gonna give Hildawg a run for her money" when there was no evidence of such a thing occurring. Just like they overplayed anything involving the email "scandal" or Benghazi investigations they were pushing the sensationalist horse race narrative when Bernie never once touched the numbers Obama pulled in 2008. Also I've seen enough of the "DNC struggling to coronate Clinton against a massive populist movement" meme all too often on Reddit and it is bunk too. The DNC has been quite accommodating to sanders including featuring him at every debate, adding many debates when requested, tolerating data breaches, including him on social media pushes and mailers.

The entire idea of UNPRECEDENTED support for Bernie by young liberals is only true if you ignore precedent. Namely that Obama's 2008 campaign beat Sanders' in every metric (excluding number of small donors). If you want to make a story out of his fundraising success, have at it haus. But to spin it into "Holy fuck look at this guy beat every expectation ever" for the entirety of 2016 is just that, spin. Bernie hasn't revolutionized anything but political fundraising, and while that may deserve a footnote in the history books, the rest of his campaign never once got within striking distance of Clinton no matter how much the media says he did.

The fact that he went from a tiny percentage of support to closing in on Clinton isn't itself surprising either considering literally EVERY other Democrat dropped out early in the year. With Clinton's high unfavorable rating ANY democratic challenger would have eventually garnered over 30%. But don't let this stop you from characterizing the DNC as an automatic coronation device for the Shill queen, it certainly hasn't stopped most Sanders supporters.

 

[East Lake]

You have brought up Ted Cruz three times now. My point is the two are so dissimilar that it makes no sense to even bring him up in any sort of relation to Hillary's foreign policy.

My original claim was that I don't understand why Hillary gets called hawkish among this current field, when her positions on foreign policy are considerably mild, especially when you compare them to what the Republicans are advocating. On its face, it just doesn't make sense to me.

Well, all of the attributes you list can easily be applied to any other candidate, if you don't like Cruz replace it with Jeb! Jeb will also only invade for the greater good.

But lets take a look at how an establishment article puts it.

Would a President Hillary Clinton practice a more enlightened version of George W. Bush’s bellicosity, rather than a more hard-nosed version of Barack Obama’s skeptical restraint? The very question exaggerates the difference between the two on the use of military power, since Obama has committed American forces across the globe and has made far more extensive use of drones that George W. Bush ever did. Nevertheless, a hawkish Clinton is a real hope for the likes of Kagan, and a real fear for liberal Democrats who want to do less abroad. Those voters have gravitated to Bernie Sanders, who rarely even discusses foreign policy, but opposed the war in Iraq, the war in Libya, and President Obama’s request for a new authorization to use force against Islamic terrorists. The best answer appears to be, as one of Clinton’s former senior aides puts it, “She is more Kaganesque than the president, but that’s a far cry from being Kaganesque.”

from dramatis' FP link.

So hawkish = a bit to the right of Obama. Doesn't seem to be a wild claim. Doesn't even seem to be something mainstream journalists are bothered with.

 

[RustyNails]

I wake up every day and thank Trump san for steamrolling Rubio out of the race.

 

[royalan]

Well, all of the attributes you list can easily be applied to any other candidate, if you don't like Cruz replace it with Jeb! Jeb will also only invade for the greater good.

If you can tell me how "precise" carpet bombing of ISIS strongholds and militant forces, which are often entangled among civilian populations, is an example of "smart power" I'll agree.

 

[noshten]

If you can tell me how "precise" carpet bombing of ISIS strongholds and militant forces, which are often entangled among civilian populations, is an example of "smart power" I'll agree.

Can you tell him how you'd implement a no-fly zone without troops on the ground?

 

[Gotchaye]

My original claim was that I don't understand why Hillary gets called hawkish among this current field, when her positions on foreign policy are considerably mild, especially when you compare them to what the Republicans are advocating. On its face, it just doesn't make sense to me.

The people calling her "hawkish" aren't comparing her to what the Republicans are advocating. All of these people would hugely prefer Clinton to any Republican except maybe Rand Paul. She's seen as more willing to use military force than Obama and more willing to use military force than the people calling her "hawkish" would like (this is what "hawkish" means). It's probably important to keep in mind that lots of people consider Obama to be disappointingly hawkish.

Like, when people complain about Sanders not connecting with black people, that's not an obviously crazy criticism just because relative to the Republicans he's the second coming of MLK.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

Hillary has advocated for interventionalist foreign policy for decades. She is more hawkish than Obama. Those are simply the facts. Obviously she is not a neoconservative so I see no point in mentioning republicans in the conversation. That being said I certainly understand why people would be concerned that the person who fiercely advocated for our disasterous Libyan policy is going to be the next president. Not to mention her ludicrous claim to this day that "arming rebels" in Syria would have magically made things better.

 

[dramatis]

Well, all of the attributes you list can easily be applied to any other candidate, if you don't like Cruz replace it with Jeb! Jeb will also only invade for the greater good.

But lets take a look at how an establishment article puts it.

from dramatis' FP link.

So hawkish = a bit to the right of Obama. Doesn't seem to be a wild claim. Doesn't even seem to be something mainstream journalists are bothered with.

It's nice that you feel the need to describe an article with 'establishment'.

The two paragraphs following the one you copied:

Afghanistan produces evidence of this as well. Clinton had always been open to Holbrooke's case for diplomacy, but believed that it could not work until military force brought the Taliban to the negotiating table. By late 2010, Clinton believed that the time was ripe to pursue diplomacy. In December, however, Holbrooke died abruptly of a torn aorta. Both as a matter of conviction and as a torch-bearing tribute to her dear friend, Clinton became a vocal advocate for opening a new political front in Afghanistan. In a speech at the Asia Society in February 2011, Clinton said that the success of the military and civilian surge had set the stage for a new diplomatic surge and, crucially, accepted that the demand that the Taliban renounce violence, cut ties with al Qaeda, and acknowledge the Afghan constitution were not preconditions but "necessary outcomes" of negotiation. This helped provoke a flurry of diplomatic activity, all of it ultimately stillborn.

By 2011, in fact, Clinton and Obama had, in effect, reversed positions on Afghanistan, with the secretary lobbying for diplomacy and the president — though increasingly disillusioned about the effectiveness of COIN — authorizing ever more targeted killings by drones and special operations forces. Over the next two years, Clinton would often find herself blocked by a White House apparently in thrall to a counterterror approach to the fight against extremism. In The Dispensable Nation, Vali Nasr, a leading scholar of international relations who served on Holbrooke's staff, argues that Obama’s protectors in the White House feared that Obama would be seen as “soft” if he chose a political rather than a military solution in Afghanistan and elsewhere, leaving Clinton as “the lone voice making the case for diplomacy.” Many former Clinton officials consider the argument somewhat overdrawn—key White House officials were quite sympathetic to the call for talks — but fundamentally accurate. Clinton never did fully succeed in persuading Petraeus that the time had come to pursue peace talks. "It too often became surge surge surge, drone drone drone," says Harold Koh, Clinton's former legal advisor. Clintonism properly understood, he asserts, is "nesting a hard-power approach into a broader smart-power strategy — development, diplomacy, public-private partnerships, rule of law."

The complexity of foreign policy leads me to think that there are a lot of situational decisions that make it hard to define what a middle is.

 

[Maledict]

I still would love people to tell me what the right policy in Libya was. For all the complaints, I honestly don't think there was a right option - and standing by and doing nothing whilst Quadaffi committed genocide against a civilian population was never going to happen.

Gods, Rwanda remains a stain on the west. At the height of our power, before the rise of China and the resurgence of Russia, we did nothing whilst genocide happened. Are we really happy to do the same thing again in Libya?

 

[Tom_Cody]

Colorado legit is a mess on the Republican side though. WTF is up with that?

In what way? Trump simply got out-organized to the point of embarrassment.

https://twitter.com/jacobsoboroff/status/718744407025946625

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/donald-trump-colorado-south-carolina-delegates-221762

https://twitter.com/tankcat/status/718883669050396672

 

[East Lake]

If you can tell me how "precise" carpet bombing of ISIS strongholds and militant forces, which are often entangled among civilian populations, is an example of "smart power" I'll agree.

I don't think it's smart power. I also think it's reasonable for someone to believe that Hillary or Obama are also not good examples of what a person might think of as smart power, while at the same time knowing they're less hawkish than Cruz, and that it doesn't necessarily reflect on any gender issue. Like I said if she is an example of smart power then that lies in her record not in any self-attributed qualities.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

I don't think it's smart power. I also think it's reasonable for someone to believe that Hillary or Obama are also not good examples of what a person might think of as smart power, while at the same time knowing they're less hawkish than Cruz, and that it doesn't necessarily reflect on any gender issue. Like I said if she is an example of smart power then that lies in her record not in any self-attributed qualities.

Her record is pretty good. She was one of the most successful Secretaries of State that we have ever had.

 

[Macho Madness]

Ivanka Trump can't vote in the primary.

 

[User 406]

I still would love people to tell me what the right policy in Libya was. For all the complaints, I honestly don't think there was a right option - and standing by and doing nothing whilst Quadaffi committed genocide against a civilian population was never going to happen.

Gods, Rwanda remains a stain on the west. At the height of our power, before the rise of China and the resurgence of Russia, we did nothing whilst genocide happened. Are we really happy to do the same thing again in Libya?

I really think the best we can hope for is leaders who actually seek international consensus and diplomatic solutions. They'll still end up entangled in the horrible reality of international conflict, but at least they'll be able to get positive outcomes when possible, like the Iran deal. At this point I can't even begin to second guess the realities a President has to deal with. The world makes hawks of them all in one way or another.

 

[East Lake]

It's nice that you feel the need to describe an article with 'establishment'.

The two paragraphs following the one you copied:

The complexity of foreign policy leads me to think that there are a lot of situational decisions that make it hard to define what a middle is.

I read it a while ago and it seemed like drivel but I described it as establishment because people in here generally don't frown on or immediately distrust "the establishment", basically saying royalan can't dismiss the article's judgment outright.

It's fairly accurate. It's not like Chomsky is on their contributor list.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

So, about this idea of primarying Debbie Wasserman Schultz...

I get the notion that she hasn't been a great DNC chair and why one might want her gone. I'm not a huge fan myself. But DNC chairmanship isn't predicated on holding elected office. At least, as far as I can tell by looking over the DNC charter, you don't have to be a sitting Congressperson or Governor or anything. That seems pretty obvious in retrospect, as the previous two DNC Chairs didn't hold office at the time. So, primarying DWS wouldn't actually do anything to prevent her from "rigging the election" or "being an incompetent chair" whatever she's accused of.

So, given that she's gonna be DNC chair no matter what, it seems stupid to waste money and effort running a progressive against her when you could focus your efforts and resources and beating a weaker Republican elsewhere.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

I think the real problem for people trying to criticize Hillary is that she frequently (almost always) overlaps with Obama, one of the most popular democratic presidents in modern history. Don't like Hillary's foreign policy? You pretty much have to argue that you don't like Obama's, which means you get the blowback from his fans.

We pretty much saw how this goes a few months ago. Criticize Obama (Bernie calling for him to be primaried, etc...) just tanked him with the Obama coalition. It's just logically inconsistent to criticize Hillary without throwing Obama under the bus as well. And that's not a winning strategy by any metric given his high approval rating, two sweeping elections, etc...

Edit: Also, I don't personally agree with isolationist policy. Not in trade, or military action. You don't take tools off the table in any situation. I get the sense that people calling for.... world peace basically? wouldn't have supported military action for something like Pearl Harbor. That's just insane. In a world where Russia gets pushed to the brink economically, where North Korea consistently threatens nuclear war, etc... I just don't see how anyone could argue that you won't need military action in the next 4-8 years. And that's just another area where I don't believe Sanders is capable enough to be president. I simply do not trust him in a situation where NK attacks south of the border, for example.

 

[Holmes]

The media will report on it without boring details.

40% of the New York population is Catholic, and they will get bombarded with "Bernie is in the Vatican" news just days before the election.

Absolutely genius tbh.

Noah fence but did you think McCain suspending his campaign in 2008 to be genius? Because Sanders is doing that for a few days right before the primary and if he wants to be Bernie Panders to the Catholic Vote then there are easier ways to do it on American soil.

 

[Maledict]

I really think the best we can hope for is leaders who actually seek international consensus and diplomatic solutions. They'll still end up entangled in the horrible reality of international conflict, but at least they'll be able to get positive outcomes when possible, like the Iran deal. At this point I can't even begin to second guess the realities a President has to deal with. The world makes hawks of them all in one way or another.

Yep - I think at some point we have to realise that until you are in the chair some aspects of foreign policy are just not possible to understand. I hate even the idea of that, but it's the only explanation for what happens there. At which point the foreign policy test is less about specifics and more and character / and I absolutely think Hillary has the character to deliver an effective Democrat foreign policy. Her actions as SoS demonstrate how she would approach things.

(Bearing in mind as well in 2008 it was Obama, not Clinton, who took the far more hawkish approach of saying he would violate Pakastini sovereignty to go after terrorist).

 

[noshten]

I still would love people to tell me what the right policy in Libya was. For all the complaints, I honestly don't think there was a right option - and standing by and doing nothing whilst Quadaffi committed genocide against a civilian population was never going to happen.

Gods, Rwanda remains a stain on the west. At the height of our power, before the rise of China and the resurgence of Russia, we did nothing whilst genocide happened. Are we really happy to do the same thing again in Libya?

Please equating what is happening in some countries as we speak to Libya is disingenuous to say the least. Currently there is actual genocide occurring in places like Sudan, Congo, Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Somalia, Nigeria, North Korea, Myanmar, Afghanistan & Pakistan. If we follow the train of thinking you seem to be advoating it would mean that we must provide the means for all these places to depose their current power structure or pick sides in bloody civil wars which have no "good" sides.

Rebels were just as much at fault for civilian casulties in Libya just as they are in most civil wars, there is usually no "just" options. Just as we've seen in other places in the Middle East what fills the void of rampant regime change is just more instability and hatred towards the West.

 

[RustyNails]

Hillary has advocated for interventionalist foreign policy for decades. She is more hawkish than Obama. Those are simply the facts. Obviously she is not a neoconservative so I see no point in mentioning republicans in the conversation. That being said I certainly understand why people would be concerned that the person who fiercely advocated for our disasterous Libyan policy is going to be the next president. Not to mention her ludicrous claim to this day that "arming rebels" in Syria would have magically made things better.

Thinking more of Libya, I think it was the right call to intervene. The alternative was a Syria scenario before Syria. The rival government in the east stepped down and recognized the UN backed government recently. However the rival government in the west is sticking to its guns but I dont think they can last long.

 

[User 463088]

So, it looks like in the last five months, Democrats added 14,037 new voters. Republicans added 12,358. The Revolution will not be populated.

 

[ampere]

I know that Hillary has it almost in the bag, despite being a nervous wreck atm. But like what is the media supposed to do to be more impartial as he was suggesting? Would a "hey baldie! Nobody cares about you and the poor. Stop trying to overturn citizens united, it's working great for us you dumb dumb!". Would that be better?

Are you suggesting that Hillary will not be stacking the Supreme Court with people who will eventually overturn Citizens United? Because it seems like you are suggesting that.

It also seems like you are suggesting that Hillary will enact policy that is bad for the poor

Ivanka Trump can't vote in the primary.

Inconsequential, but still hilarious

 

[Suikoguy]

I take back what I said last page about Obama endorsing. He probably won't until the convention.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

So, it looks like in the last five months, Democrats added 14,037 new voters. Republicans added 12,358. The Revolution will not be populated.

That looks fairly suspicious to me. Where does that number come from?

 

[User 406]

Are you suggesting that Hillary will not be stacking the Supreme Court with people who will eventually overturn Citizens United? Because it seems like you are suggesting that.

Shit, she's said multiple times that overturning CU is one of her litmus tests for an SC nominee.

 

[Maledict]

Please equating what is happening in some countries as we speak to Libya is disingenuous to say the least. Currently there is actual genocide occurring in places like Sudan, Congo, Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Somalia, Nigeria, North Korea, Myanmar, Afghanistan & Pakistan. If we follow the train of thinking you seem to be advoating it would mean that we must provide the means for all these places to depose their current power structure or pick sides in bloody civil wars which have no "good" sides.

Rebels were just as much at fault for civilian casulties in Libya just as they are in most civil wars, there is usually no "just" options. Just as we've seen in other places in the Middle East what fills the void of rampant regime change is just more instability and hatred towards the West.

He quite literally had columns of tanks and armed soldiers en route to Bengazi. There was no question of what was about to happen - an entire city was about to be put to the sword, very visibly in front of the world.

Do I think it awful that other crimes continue? Absolutely. But I also recognise that sitting back and doing nothing against anyone is a ridiculous case of 'what about ism'.

I mean, again - there was a literal army on route to commit slaughtered against a civilian population. This wasn't a battlefield we intervened in. French and British planes literally stopped the a city being destroyed (with, obviously, massive American support without which nothing would have happened).

Critisce us for fucking up afterwards, absolutely. But for once in foreign policy there was a clear and simple problem and target. Standing back and letting an army slaughtered civilians in that way when we had the power to stop it would be wrong, in the same way it was wrong in Rwanda.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Does some of HillGAF want to help with the DNC thread?

CCS, Adam, Tom, royalan?

 

[User 463088]

From the NY Post

That looks fairly suspicious to me. Where does that number come from?

 

[Spoiled Milk]

From the NY Post

Damn. Ny really does suck.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Around the March deadline I thought I read something about 41,000 new registrations in that last week or two. I guess that was, uh, inaccurate?

 

[CCS]

Does some of HillGAF want to help with the DNC thread?

CCS, Adam, Tom, royalan?

When will it being going up? I'd be happy to help

 

[ApharmdX]

I think the real problem for people trying to criticize Hillary is that she frequently (almost always) overlaps with Obama, one of the most popular democratic presidents in modern history. Don't like Hillary's foreign policy? You pretty much have to argue that you don't like Obama's, which means you get the blowback from his fans.

We pretty much saw how this goes a few months ago. Criticize Obama (Bernie calling for him to be primaried, etc...) just tanked him with the Obama coalition. It's just logically inconsistent to criticize Hillary without throwing Obama under the bus as well. And that's not a winning strategy by any metric given his high approval rating, two sweeping elections, etc...

Edit: Also, I don't personally agree with isolationist policy. Not in trade, or military action. You don't take tools off the table in any situation. I get the sense that people calling for.... world peace basically? wouldn't have supported military action for something like Pearl Harbor. That's just insane. In a world where Russia gets pushed to the brink economically, where North Korea consistently threatens nuclear war, etc... I just don't see how anyone could argue that you won't need military action in the next 4-8 years. And that's just another area where I don't believe Sanders is capable enough to be president. I simply do not trust him in a situation where NK attacks south of the border, for example.

That's a pretty wild distortion. You really think that those of us who are non-interventionist wouldn't have responded to an overt attack on US soil by another nation?

Not wanting to engage in nation-building doesn't mean not having a national defense.

Hillary has advocated for interventionalist foreign policy for decades. She is more hawkish than Obama. Those are simply the facts. Obviously she is not a neoconservative so I see no point in mentioning republicans in the conversation. That being said I certainly understand why people would be concerned that the person who fiercely advocated for our disasterous Libyan policy is going to be the next president. Not to mention her ludicrous claim to this day that "arming rebels" in Syria would have magically made things better.

Clinton's willingness to intervene where we aren't wanted is my least-favorite part about her as prez. Hopefully this will be tempered once she actually gets in the Oval Office.

This is kind of where I am

http://www.atlredline.com/i-m-with-her-i-guess-1769742021

That's a good article, and on-point mostly, though I'll be voting for Bernie on the 26th. He failed to broaden his coalition to include the groups that he needed to. Whatever that is due to, lack of name recognition, low-education voters, or dislike of his policies, it doesn't matter.

 

[NeoXChaos]

When will it being going up? I'd be happy to help

The Sunday before the DNC convention July 25-28.

 

[User 463088]

The Sunday before the DNC convention July 25-28.

I'm not sure how much help I'd be, but sure. Anything you need.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I don't think it's smart power. I also think it's reasonable for someone to believe that Hillary or Obama are also not good examples of what a person might think of as smart power, while at the same time knowing they're less hawkish than Cruz, and that it doesn't necessarily reflect on any gender issue. Like I said if she is an example of smart power then that lies in her record not in any self-attributed qualities.

Can you define non-hawkish? When is military force recommended? What the the situations and criteria that define somebody as hawkish?

 

[Holmes]

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/san...blacks-vote-hillary-because-of-brand-loyalty/

I think one thing that comes up with a lot of Sanders surrogates is Obama disappointment or even hate, sometimes subtle and sometimes not so subtle, and I think there's a share of Sanders supporters (and a larger share of Sanders voters who aren't necessarily supporting him) that feel the same about Obama. Clinton constantly hugging Obama tightly, and Obama and the White House repeatedly going to her defence must have really gotten to them.

 

[CCS]

The Sunday before the DNC convention July 25-28.

Great, I'll have plenty of free time around then so happy to help

 

[dramatis]

I read it a while ago and it seemed like drivel but I described it as establishment because people in here generally don't frown on or immediately distrust "the establishment", basically saying royalan can't dismiss the article's judgment outright.

It's fairly accurate. It's not like Chomsky is on their contributor list.

Be honest, you're using 'establishment' as a sarcastic insult. Whether or not Chomsky is on their contributor list doesn't prevent FP from having quality content. You probably just think it's drivel because it doesn't fit with your conceived idea of what Hillary's position on foreign policy is. God forbid someone other than Chomsky have decent reporting or ideas about foreign policy.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Mark Murray ‏@mmurraypolitics 15m15 minutes ago
Sanders mgr Weaver tells @tamronhall Sanders will pass HRC in pledged dels. HRC's lead "will get lower and lower until he passes her on 6/7"

 

[Bowdz]

Mark Murray ‏@mmurraypolitics 15m15 minutes ago
Sanders mgr Weaver tells @tamronhall Sanders will pass HRC in pledged dels. HRC's lead "will get lower and lower until he passes her on 6/7"

"But we don't need to win New York..."

 

[B-Dubs]

That's a good article, and on-point mostly, though I'll be voting for Bernie on the 26th. He failed to broaden his coalition to include the groups that he needed to. Whatever that is due to, lack of name recognition, low-education voters, or dislike of his policies, it doesn't matter.

People thinking the bolded part of his post is why he had a hard time making inroads is why he didn't make inroads. The fact of the matter is he was invisible to a huge swath of the electorate until he started running and then only started talking about the issues that affected them after getting forced into it. Bernie not doing better is all on him not putting the work in beforehand and thinking people would just rally around his message.

 

[studyguy]

Mark Murray ‏@mmurraypolitics 15m15 minutes ago
Sanders mgr Weaver tells @tamronhall Sanders will pass HRC in pledged dels. HRC's lead "will get lower and lower until he passes her on 6/7"

lol ok

 

[noshten]

He quite literally had columns of tanks and armed soldiers en route to Bengazi. There was no question of what was about to happen - an entire city was about to be put to the sword, very visibly in front of the world.

Do I think it awful that other crimes continue? Absolutely. But I also recognise that sitting back and doing nothing against anyone is a ridiculous case of 'what about ism'.

I mean, again - there was a literal army on route to commit slaughtered against a civilian population. This wasn't a battlefield we intervened in. French and British planes literally stopped the a city being destroyed (with, obviously, massive American support without which nothing would have happened).

Critisce us for fucking up afterwards, absolutely. But for once in foreign policy there was a clear and simple problem and target. Standing back and letting an army slaughtered civilians in that way when we had the power to stop it would be wrong, in the same way it was wrong in Rwanda.

The question is that while Gaddaffi was deposed for the supposed genocide while in Bahrain virtually the same things happened in-order for the Arab Spring to be shutdown and no actual blockback from the international community occurred.

The reason for Gaddaffi's removal from power were far more geopolitical than humanitarian and the unintended consequences will be felt for generations. As we have seen in many ME countries when you depose a dictator first of all women are disproportionately hurt by the new fundamental reality in the region. No matter how you view the regime in the end it's far more empowering for women than the majority of rebels. It provided far more healthcare, education and food than is currently available. Right now Libya is a failed state and there doesn't seem to be an end in sight as more and more ISIS fighters fleeing Syria and Iraq are heading towards Libya, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Without cultivating the right environment in these nations or have a 10-20 year plan of investments it just leads to a cycle of authoritarian rule, civil war, genocide and more authoritarian rule. The cost for the Libya regime change was not great short term but long term it would be far greater.


Why is Libya so lawless?

The oil-rich country once had one of the highest standards of living in Africa with free healthcare and free education, but five years on from the uprising it is facing a financial crisis.

Some security analysts describe Libya as an arms bazaar. It is awash with weapons looted from Gaddafi's arsenal - making an ideal playground for jihadists fleeing air strikes in Syria and Iraq.

They were united in their hatred for Gaddafi - but nothing more. There was no single group in charge of the rebellion. Militias were based in different cities, fighting their own battles.

They are also ideologically divided - some of them are militant or moderate Islamists, others are secessionists and yet others are liberals. Furthermore, the militias are split along regional, ethnic and local lines, making it a combustible mix.

And after more than four decades of authoritarian rule, they had little understanding of democracy.

So, they were unable to forge compromises and build a new state based on the rule of law.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-24472322

 

[East Lake]

Be honest, you're using 'establishment' as a sarcastic insult. Whether or not Chomsky is on their contributor list doesn't prevent FP from having quality content. You probably just think it's drivel because it doesn't fit with your conceived idea of what Hillary's position on foreign policy is. God forbid someone other than Chomsky have decent reporting or ideas about foreign policy.

Not really. I read establishment newspapers and so does Chomsky. That aside it's not even an offensive description of FP. That article was posted a while ago in here and I thought it was bad because it had basic details wrong, like whether Obama approved the F-35 Israel deal, as if the author just read it somewhere and didn't bother double checking if it actually happened.

 

[Macho Madness]

Bernie Sanders Will Become Democratic Nominee Even If Clinton Leads in Delegates