Author Topic: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate  (Read 512167 times)

brooklynguy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2195
  • Age: 37
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #50 on: November 20, 2015, 12:25:41 PM »
Remember Christians, support for Rubio's brand of Conservative Christianity "defending the family" also literally involves endorsing anti-semitism, just for starters.

Your post and the linked article in it was the first I've heard about this, but, unless there's more to the story, I don't see any evidence of anti-Semitism.  Holding a fundraising event at the household of a wealthy individual whose collection of historical memorabilia includes Nazi artifacts does not qualify, if that's all there is to the story.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7189
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #51 on: November 20, 2015, 12:30:42 PM »
Quote
The citizens of Canada didn't select Justin Trudeau out of a list of other potential liberal candidates to lead the Liberal party ahead of the federal election.

Trudeau was voted into place by his party long before the federal election took place.  Each member of his party got one vote.  He was selected from a group of six other potential candidates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Canada_leadership_elections#2013_leadership_election).  Is that not how the primaries in the US work?
Well i'm obviously not doing a very good job here.  Here's another attempt.  Yes, in Canada the party's leader is decided by a popular vote.  However, there's some differences that, while subtle, i think are very important.  When the populous votes for the party's leader, they are (at least in modern times) voting for an MP.  The person with the most votes becomes the declared party leader.  Even if the party does not gain a majority during the elections that person typically remains the party leader.  Tom Mulcair is still the leader of the NDP and has more power than other MPs in his party, even though he is not Prime Minister. Also important, you have to be a member of that political party to vote for party leader (I know this is true for at least the Liberal and NDP parties).  The rules differ by state for voting in Presidential primaries, but in many states you can vote for whomever you like, regardless of your party affiliation.
In contrast, often the presidential party candidates are NOT federal legislatures.  This is very apparent in this GOP race, where Trump, Carson, Fiorina have held no political office, and others like Bush, Huckabee, Christy etc are not members of the house or senate.  Many of our US presidents were not from the federal legislature when they were elected (Clinton, "W", Reagan, Carter etc). 
Also important - let's suppose for a minute that Trump (or Carson or Bush or Christy if you prefer) wins the nomination to be the GOP presidential candidate in November.  He is still not the leader of the republican party. That honor would remain with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell.  No legal power is bestowed until the candidate becomes elected.  I would say that Romney, McCain, Kerry and Gore (to name the last four losing presidential candidates) were never the respective leaders of their party, even after they been nominated as their party's candidate for President.

Are there similarities? Of course.  Are PM/Presidential candidates selected by a subset of the voting population? Sure.  But to me the glaring differences has to do with the fact that Canadians are selecting (at least in recent time) a sitting MP for party candidate, while the US population seems to choose whatever person they feel like.

A final thought:  Another interesting difference is that the leader of both the House and Senate are NOT voted on by the people. Earlier I commented about how, from a legislative point of view many of Trudeau's duties and powers are more akin to Paul Ryan's.  Well Ryan wasn't even remotely selected by popular vote, whereas people in Canada at least had the good sense that their vote also counted for their particular candidate to become PM.

 
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3729
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Got that mustache feeling.
    • Technical Meshugana
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #52 on: November 20, 2015, 01:05:35 PM »
Remember Christians, support for Rubio's brand of Conservative Christianity "defending the family" also literally involves endorsing anti-semitism, just for starters.

Your post and the linked article in it was the first I've heard about this, but, unless there's more to the story, I don't see any evidence of anti-Semitism.  Holding a fundraising event at the household of a wealthy individual whose collection of historical memorabilia includes Nazi artifacts does not qualify, if that's all there is to the story.

Okay, fair enough. Perhaps my language was a little harsh and a bit too judgmental, but it still happened, and it raises some uncomfortable questions given what's going on in the Republican camp these days.... and it's pretty incongruous to deflect the subject and defend the choice when called on it instead of apologize if he's truly such a great friend of Israel in the first place.

If I'm truly wrong, I apologize not just to this community, but to Rubio and HaShem... but there's some deeply unsettling things going on in the Republican party right now, and it's hard to trust any of these clowns - not that there's any better hope on the Democratic side. Can we please just get a no confidence voting option in this country?
Hi, I'm Daley, the Howard Cosell of MVNOs and the Technical Meshugana. I'm also the author of the Frugal Communications Guide and our own Superguide.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2728
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #53 on: November 20, 2015, 01:25:13 PM »
Another legitimate criticism of Ben Carson:

He apparently doesn't know that we don't live in a police state, yet, and he thinks we should be:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-muslim-database
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Proud Foot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 830
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #54 on: November 20, 2015, 02:57:20 PM »
I do think Ben Carson is a very brilliant man, particularly when it comes to medicine, however I haven't felt like he understands and even grasps the majority of what is necessary to be the President.

He has his own advisers stating that he struggles with foreign policy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/us/politics/ben-carson-is-struggling-to-grasp-foreign-policy-advisers-say.html?_r=0

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #55 on: November 21, 2015, 03:15:17 PM »
I do think Ben Carson is a very brilliant man, particularly when it comes to medicine, however I haven't felt like he understands and even grasps the majority of what is necessary to be the President.

He has his own advisers stating that he struggles with foreign policy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/us/politics/ben-carson-is-struggling-to-grasp-foreign-policy-advisers-say.html?_r=0

Sad that it takes a terrorist attack to remind people that electing a brain surgeon for president is just plain nuts. I wonder what it will take for some folks to realize the same about a real estate developer.

Mika M

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 59
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Springfield, VA
  • FIRE stars in my eyes
    • The Lazy Frugal
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #56 on: November 24, 2015, 06:39:52 AM »
I do think Ben Carson is a very brilliant man, particularly when it comes to medicine, however I haven't felt like he understands and even grasps the majority of what is necessary to be the President.

He has his own advisers stating that he struggles with foreign policy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/us/politics/ben-carson-is-struggling-to-grasp-foreign-policy-advisers-say.html?_r=0

I don't know why he doesn't start at least a little smaller like running for Senate. Maybe if the GOP wins the WH next year he could be Surgeon General...
Lazy Frugal

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #57 on: November 24, 2015, 06:47:26 AM »
I do think Ben Carson is a very brilliant man, particularly when it comes to medicine, however I haven't felt like he understands and even grasps the majority of what is necessary to be the President.

He has his own advisers stating that he struggles with foreign policy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/us/politics/ben-carson-is-struggling-to-grasp-foreign-policy-advisers-say.html?_r=0

I don't know why he doesn't start at least a little smaller like running for Senate. Maybe if the GOP wins the WH next year he could be Surgeon General...

Given that he thinks that childhood immunizations are scheduled too closely, promotes worthless supplements, and thinks prison turns people gay, Carson displays a disturbing lack of discernment in areas of science and medicine such that in no way should he be in a position of public trust such as Surgeon General. On the other hand, all those crazy ideas would be a perfect fit for a GOP congressman.

I wouldn't trust him to be Surgeon General.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2951
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #58 on: November 24, 2015, 10:01:48 PM »
Legitimate criticism of Chris Christie ( in addition to the mention of CC in OP ) - signing an executive order that allows foreign governments and private individuals to fund his lavish travel, what he calls "squeez(ing) all the juice out of the orange."  This is contrary to most codes of ethics for state governors and US elected officials in Washington.

Quote
An executive order Mr. Christie signed in 2010 allows New Jersey governors to have travel and related expenses paid by foreign governments.    - NY Times Article.
 

I thought this info was on his wikipedia page, but I can't seem to find it anymore.  I wonder if it was scrubbed. 

Personally, I find this exec order not only unethical, but an indication that he thinks he's above rules that apply to everyone else.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2015, 10:05:55 PM by Malaysia41 »
Last one to panic wins!

My Rohingya Refugee Charity (It's Tax Exempt!)

Privately funded political systems are just WRONG.

brianw

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Age: 47
  • Location: South Africa
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #59 on: November 26, 2015, 12:19:33 AM »

Extremism is so easy. You've got your position, and that's it. It
doesn't take much thought. And when you go far enough to the right you
meet the same idiots coming around from the left' (Clint Eastwood, believe it or not)
To begin, begin- William Wordsworth

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2883
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #60 on: December 02, 2015, 05:32:20 PM »
-Hillary: No one on either stage has the insider foreign policy knowledge that she has.

Insider foreign policy knowledge gleaned from years of failure to achieve ends good for the United States.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #61 on: December 03, 2015, 07:47:57 AM »
-Hillary: No one on either stage has the insider foreign policy knowledge that she has.

Insider foreign policy knowledge gleaned from years of failure to achieve ends good for the United States.

Let's talk successes. As Sec of State Clinton:

1. helped secure the crippling sanctions (not just the U.S., but also getting cooperation from Russia, the E.U., etc) on Iran that brought them to the negotiating table
2. helpeded secure the new START treaty with Russia
3. negotiated a cease fire in Gaza in 2012 that halted Hamas firing rockets into Israel and averting all out war
4. laid the groundwork for normalization of relations with Cuba encouraging Obama to lift the embargo
5. was a tireless ambassador for U.S. relations and global women's rights traveling to over 100 countries during her tenure

These are just a few examples that I could dig up with some simple googling.

At the very least these reinforce the following:
1. Clinton is very experienced in foreign policy matters
2. Clinton has a solid working relationship with many leaders in many countries
3. Clinton has a track record of effective negotiations

No other candidate, Republican nor Democrat can make any of these claims to the same degree. Lindsey Graham probably comes the closest in terms of foreign policy knowledge, but in terms of actual working diplomatic experience and working relationships with foreign leaders, he falls short compared to Clinton.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1447
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #62 on: December 03, 2015, 09:28:08 AM »
-Hillary: No one on either stage has the insider foreign policy knowledge that she has.

Insider foreign policy knowledge gleaned from years of failure to achieve ends good for the United States.

Let's talk successes. As Sec of State Clinton:

1. helped secure the crippling sanctions (not just the U.S., but also getting cooperation from Russia, the E.U., etc) on Iran that brought them to the negotiating table
2. helpeded secure the new START treaty with Russia
3. negotiated a cease fire in Gaza in 2012 that halted Hamas firing rockets into Israel and averting all out war
4. laid the groundwork for normalization of relations with Cuba encouraging Obama to lift the embargo
5. was a tireless ambassador for U.S. relations and global women's rights traveling to over 100 countries during her tenure

These are just a few examples that I could dig up with some simple googling.

At the very least these reinforce the following:
1. Clinton is very experienced in foreign policy matters
2. Clinton has a solid working relationship with many leaders in many countries
3. Clinton has a track record of effective negotiations

No other candidate, Republican nor Democrat can make any of these claims to the same degree. Lindsey Graham probably comes the closest in terms of foreign policy knowledge, but in terms of actual working diplomatic experience and working relationships with foreign leaders, he falls short compared to Clinton.

In terms of global progress, this point is really undervalued. If we want to make long-lasting progress in avoiding conflict and poverty issues, then advocacy for women's rights and education are among the best returns on investment. While this may not have directly responded to a brewing conflict, I think it is important and I am glad she put emphasis on it. I do not know if Kerry has continued this emphasis. Her record stacks favorably against Condoleeza Rice in my mind.
No, really. I spend a lot of time thinking about rocks.

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2883
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #63 on: December 03, 2015, 10:33:26 AM »
-Hillary: No one on either stage has the insider foreign policy knowledge that she has.

Insider foreign policy knowledge gleaned from years of failure to achieve ends good for the United States.

Let's talk successes.

Okay.

Quote
As Sec of State Clinton:

1. helped secure the crippling sanctions (not just the U.S., but also getting cooperation from Russia, the E.U., etc) on Iran that brought them to the negotiating table

Iran is funding insurgencies which have direct control over parts of Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. Their leaders still regularly call out the United States for special enmity. There is no reason to believe that they are trustworthy or that they are complying with what they agreed to.

Sanctions are a cruel method of extracting compliance from other countries.

Quote
2. helpeded secure the new START treaty with Russia

OK. Overall relations with Russia haven't been great, but alright.

Quote
3. negotiated a cease fire in Gaza in 2012 that halted Hamas firing rockets into Israel and averting all out war

Stabbings have been substituted for rockets. A fleeting success.

Quote
4. laid the groundwork for normalization of relations with Cuba encouraging Obama to lift the embargo

I am all in favor of lifting the embargo.

Quote
5. was a tireless ambassador for U.S. relations and global women's rights traveling to over 100 countries during her tenure

U.S. relations with other nations have not substantively improved during the current administration.

Let's talk failures!

1. Clinton helped the United States join in the complete destruction of the Libyan state, with no useful plan for what came next. Libya is now divided between Islamists, a wanna-be dictator, and the Islamic State. The participation of the United States was illegal, constituting a violation of the War Powers Act with the embarrassing figleaf of "kinetic military action." Clinton and the administration did not have the courage to describe destroying a country with airstrikes as "war".
2. Afghanistan is still in awful shape.
3. A US Ambassador was murdered while she was Secretary of State. There's probably nothing she could have done to avoid that, other than not destroying Libya in the first place, but at that point it was done. The initial public response focused on the arrest of an amateur filmmaker.
4. The growth and success of the Islamic State came as a complete surprise to the US and our allies. Clinton was Secretary of State while its progenitor, Jabhat al-Nusra, was capturing territory in Syria.
5. She violated the law by keeping a private, unsecure email server at her private residence. There is no valid excuse or justification for this.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot:
6-9999: She voted to invade Iraq.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2015, 10:47:12 AM by ShoulderThingThatGoesUp »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10038
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #64 on: December 03, 2015, 11:20:14 AM »
2. Afghanistan is still in awful shape.

Kinda a tough question, but I think a fair one since you appear to be laying the blame for the state of the country on a single person:
What do you think Clinton should have done that would fix Afghanistan?

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #65 on: December 03, 2015, 11:59:43 AM »
2. Afghanistan is still in awful shape.

Kinda a tough question, but I think a fair one since you appear to be laying the blame for the state of the country on a single person:
What do you think Clinton should have done that would fix Afghanistan?

Ditto, plus I'm not sure how the private email server really contributes to any arguments regarding foreign policy failures. Irresponsible, yes. Illegal, still being decided. Foreign policy failure, no.

Critics can point to areas where U.S. foreign policy has not worked.  That's fair. Even so, that does not erase Clinton's foreign policy successes and it doesn't elevate any of the other candidates in comparison to her. Like her or not, agree with her or not, there is no other candidate in either party with her level of foreign policy experience. Period.

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2883
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #66 on: December 03, 2015, 12:20:14 PM »
2. Afghanistan is still in awful shape.

Kinda a tough question, but I think a fair one since you appear to be laying the blame for the state of the country on a single person:
What do you think Clinton should have done that would fix Afghanistan?

When the plumber stays four hours and water's still leaking everywhere after he told me it would be done in three, it's not a counterargument for him to ask me what I think should be done.

To answer your question, though: Nothing, that's why I'm anti-intervention across the board. I don't think we should have troops in Afghanistan. It's not accomplishing anything, so Clinton has participated in putting American troops in danger and causing the inevitable collateral damage of war for no good reason.

I don't think it's a fair assessment to say I'm laying the blame for the state of it solely on her, but she did voluntarily take partial responsibility for it and didn't succeed.

Ditto, plus I'm not sure how the private email server really contributes to any arguments regarding foreign policy failures. Irresponsible, yes. Illegal, still being decided. Foreign policy failure, no.

Critics can point to areas where U.S. foreign policy has not worked.  That's fair. Even so, that does not erase Clinton's foreign policy successes and it doesn't elevate any of the other candidates in comparison to her. Like her or not, agree with her or not, there is no other candidate in either party with her level of foreign policy experience. Period.

You don't see how storing data important to national security on an unsecure email server is a foreign policy failure? You don't think any Russians or Chinese got into it?

There's no other candidate who's had anywhere near the magnitude of effect on foreign policy that she has. Obviously when you have a job, sometimes you'll get it right and sometimes you won't. My argument is that she got it wrong in much more important ways than she ever got it right.

True, no other candidate has done as much to normalize relations with Cuba. But none of the others (Lindsey Graham possibly excepted) have had such a high degree of participation in the utter destruction of nations for no good reason.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10038
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #67 on: December 03, 2015, 12:29:10 PM »
2. Afghanistan is still in awful shape.

Kinda a tough question, but I think a fair one since you appear to be laying the blame for the state of the country on a single person:
What do you think Clinton should have done that would fix Afghanistan?

When the plumber stays four hours and water's still leaking everywhere after he told me it would be done in three, it's not a counterargument for him to ask me what I think should be done.

To answer your question, though: Nothing, that's why I'm anti-intervention across the board. I don't think we should have troops in Afghanistan. It's not accomplishing anything, so Clinton has participated in putting American troops in danger and causing the inevitable collateral damage of war for no good reason.

I don't think it's a fair assessment to say I'm laying the blame for the state of it solely on her, but she did voluntarily take partial responsibility for it and didn't succeed.

So, you believe that the solution to the problems in Afghanistan would be to say 'fuck it' and leave after invading and ousting the ruling powers?  That approach didn't work really well in Iraq when the US did it . . . why do you think it would be a better plan in Afghanistan?

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2883
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #68 on: December 03, 2015, 12:48:00 PM »
2. Afghanistan is still in awful shape.

Kinda a tough question, but I think a fair one since you appear to be laying the blame for the state of the country on a single person:
What do you think Clinton should have done that would fix Afghanistan?

When the plumber stays four hours and water's still leaking everywhere after he told me it would be done in three, it's not a counterargument for him to ask me what I think should be done.

To answer your question, though: Nothing, that's why I'm anti-intervention across the board. I don't think we should have troops in Afghanistan. It's not accomplishing anything, so Clinton has participated in putting American troops in danger and causing the inevitable collateral damage of war for no good reason.

I don't think it's a fair assessment to say I'm laying the blame for the state of it solely on her, but she did voluntarily take partial responsibility for it and didn't succeed.

So, you believe that the solution to the problems in Afghanistan would be to say 'fuck it' and leave after invading and ousting the ruling powers?  That approach didn't work really well in Iraq when the US did it . . . why do you think it would be a better plan in Afghanistan?

This thread is about candidates, not hashing out our personal views. I'm happy to go into more detail why I think we should abandon our colony in Afghanistan if you want but I think it would be a tangent.

It's ironic, though, that this: say 'fuck it' and leave after invading and ousting the ruling powers is exactly what Hillary Clinton did in Libya - and it was the plan all along!

StetsTerhune

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 420
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #69 on: December 03, 2015, 01:42:00 PM »
Negative on Ted Cruz: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/opinion/anyone-but-ted-cruz.html?_r=0
(to summarize -- everyone who's ever met Ted Cruz hates him. From his college roommate: I would rather have anybody else be the president of the United States. Anyone. I would rather pick somebody from the phone book.)

Also this isn't particularly serious, but it's wonderful: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/11/16/hardball-questions-for-the-next-debate/
The Ben Carson and Jeb Bush questions are particularly wonderful.

Best theories I've heard on the Republican race. Donald Trump is just running as a favor for Bill Clinton. Or, it's demographically impossible for a Republican to win a presidential election in 2016, and everyone knows it.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #70 on: December 03, 2015, 01:57:16 PM »
You don't see how storing data important to national security on an unsecure email server is a foreign policy failure? You don't think any Russians or Chinese got into it?

I don't think we really know one way or the other. It is not unimaginable. Even if that did take place, however, that would be defined as a IT security failure, not a foreign policy failure. Foreign policy is a government's strategy for dealing with other countries. Could it put foreign policy at risk. Yes. Therefore I would define it as a potential foreign policy risk, but not a foreign policy failure.

There's no other candidate who's had anywhere near the magnitude of effect on foreign policy that she has. Obviously when you have a job, sometimes you'll get it right and sometimes you won't. My argument is that she got it wrong in much more important ways than she ever got it right.

I suspect that your judgement is based more on an emotional reaction to Clinton in general than a serious critique of all her successes and failures. I doubt very few of us really have the knowledge to give her an objective report card. I know I'm not. My point has merely been that any accusation that she is only associated with failed foreign policy is inaccurate.

True, no other candidate has done as much to normalize relations with Cuba. But none of the others (Lindsey Graham possibly excepted) have had such a high degree of participation in the utter destruction of nations for no good reason.

I would counter that many of the problems that you lie at the feet of Clinton did not originate with her. The Obama admin inherited the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The freedom movements that started in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria were not of her devising. Events began to play out that had no clear path to what was the best resolution. Would the Middle East be a safer place if Libya was still in civil war like Syria? You claim to be non-interventionist, but blame Clinton for the rise of ISIS, yet the only way that probably would have been avoided would be if the U.S. had maintained a significant fighting force in Iraq. The region has been screwed up for decades and I haven't seen any evidence that someone other than Clinton with any significantly different foreign policy would have resulted in any better situation over there.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7189
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #71 on: December 03, 2015, 02:53:49 PM »
an interesting, interactive poll from the Washington Post came out today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/ns/societly-vaa/?hpid=hp_no-name_graphic-story-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Answer a series of questions and see how they line up with various candidates. 
While the results may or may not shift your voting preferences, what I found most interesting was the synopsis on each candidate on various issues, and the 'radar-plot' which attempts to map out how the politician fit on several issues.

"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

infogoon

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #72 on: December 03, 2015, 02:59:45 PM »
Best theories I've heard on the Republican race. Donald Trump is just running as a favor for Bill Clinton. Or, it's demographically impossible for a Republican to win a presidential election in 2016, and everyone knows it.

I'm pretty sure the Republicans have decided to run clowns for President to distract everyone from the fact that they're winning everything else, from the Congress right on down to state legislatures and gubernatorial races. In about ten years they're going to have a really full bench for future electioneering and the Democrats won't have squat. Hell, they don't seem to now.

StetsTerhune

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 420
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #73 on: December 03, 2015, 03:26:00 PM »
Best theories I've heard on the Republican race. Donald Trump is just running as a favor for Bill Clinton. Or, it's demographically impossible for a Republican to win a presidential election in 2016, and everyone knows it.

I'm pretty sure the Republicans have decided to run clowns for President to distract everyone from the fact that they're winning everything else, from the Congress right on down to state legislatures and gubernatorial races. In about ten years they're going to have a really full bench for future electioneering and the Democrats won't have squat. Hell, they don't seem to now.

Yes, an even stronger fact than "Republicans can't win a presidential election" is "Republicans can't lose the House of Congress." That's just the facts of how these things are set up at this point. This set up pushes the Republicans to the right (primaries are all that matter for the vast majority of representatives). Ironically,  that pushes Democrats to the right as well. Democrats can move right and gain votes in the center. They have nothing to lose on the left because Democratic primaries are less about litmus tests and more about the "who can beat the Republican" test.

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2883
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #74 on: December 04, 2015, 05:14:11 AM »
You don't see how storing data important to national security on an unsecure email server is a foreign policy failure? You don't think any Russians or Chinese got into it?

I don't think we really know one way or the other. It is not unimaginable. Even if that did take place, however, that would be defined as a IT security failure, not a foreign policy failure. Foreign policy is a government's strategy for dealing with other countries. Could it put foreign policy at risk. Yes. Therefore I would define it as a potential foreign policy risk, but not a foreign policy failure.
I agree, Clinton's failures are not restricted to the foreign policy realm. As President she will have the opportunity to fail in all aspects of administration of the country.

Quote
There's no other candidate who's had anywhere near the magnitude of effect on foreign policy that she has. Obviously when you have a job, sometimes you'll get it right and sometimes you won't. My argument is that she got it wrong in much more important ways than she ever got it right.

I suspect that your judgement is based more on an emotional reaction to Clinton in general than a serious critique of all her successes and failures. I doubt very few of us really have the knowledge to give her an objective report card. I know I'm not. My point has merely been that any accusation that she is only associated with failed foreign policy is inaccurate.

Obviously it's subjective, but I think destroying two countries is of pretty substantial magnitude. Nobody says Dick Cheney is qualified to be President because he was a successful Secretary of Defense.

Quote
True, no other candidate has done as much to normalize relations with Cuba. But none of the others (Lindsey Graham possibly excepted) have had such a high degree of participation in the utter destruction of nations for no good reason.

I would counter that many of the problems that you lie at the feet of Clinton did not originate with her. The Obama admin inherited the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They spent a long time and millions of dollars requesting that responsibility. It's not unfair to expect them to handle it.

Quote
The freedom movements that started in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria were not of her devising. Events began to play out that had no clear path to what was the best resolution. Would the Middle East be a safer place if Libya was still in civil war like Syria?

Libya is still in civil war! How are you trumpeting Clinton's successes if you don't know this? These are the top headlines from Libya according to Google News:
IS could expand from Libya but faces hostile environment
JOHN R BRADLEY on ISIS's barbaric new crucible of terror
Those who think US troops should be in Libya are wrong
...
Can Peace Deal Bring Relief to South Libya's 'Chinese Camp'?

This is Wikipedia's map of the "current military situation in Libya:"


Does that look a nation where the United States brought peace to you?

Quote
You claim to be non-interventionist, but blame Clinton for the rise of ISIS, yet the only way that probably would have been avoided would be if the U.S. had maintained a significant fighting force in Iraq.

Clinton was a Senator in 2003. She voted to invade Iraq in the first place. She had an opportunity to lead, and failed. ISIS existed in Iraq during the US occupation.

Quote
The region has been screwed up for decades and I haven't seen any evidence that someone other than Clinton with any significantly different foreign policy would have resulted in any better situation over there.
Then let's stop voting in people who want to intervene in the region. You and I both know that it won't get anything done. So let's stop wasting blood and treasure there.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #75 on: December 04, 2015, 06:23:54 AM »
You don't see how storing data important to national security on an unsecure email server is a foreign policy failure? You don't think any Russians or Chinese got into it?

I don't think we really know one way or the other. It is not unimaginable. Even if that did take place, however, that would be defined as a IT security failure, not a foreign policy failure. Foreign policy is a government's strategy for dealing with other countries. Could it put foreign policy at risk. Yes. Therefore I would define it as a potential foreign policy risk, but not a foreign policy failure.
I agree, Clinton's failures are not restricted to the foreign policy realm. As President she will have the opportunity to fail in all aspects of administration of the country.

Quote
There's no other candidate who's had anywhere near the magnitude of effect on foreign policy that she has. Obviously when you have a job, sometimes you'll get it right and sometimes you won't. My argument is that she got it wrong in much more important ways than she ever got it right.

I suspect that your judgement is based more on an emotional reaction to Clinton in general than a serious critique of all her successes and failures. I doubt very few of us really have the knowledge to give her an objective report card. I know I'm not. My point has merely been that any accusation that she is only associated with failed foreign policy is inaccurate.

Obviously it's subjective, but I think destroying two countries is of pretty substantial magnitude. Nobody says Dick Cheney is qualified to be President because he was a successful Secretary of Defense.

Quote
True, no other candidate has done as much to normalize relations with Cuba. But none of the others (Lindsey Graham possibly excepted) have had such a high degree of participation in the utter destruction of nations for no good reason.

I would counter that many of the problems that you lie at the feet of Clinton did not originate with her. The Obama admin inherited the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They spent a long time and millions of dollars requesting that responsibility. It's not unfair to expect them to handle it.

Quote
The freedom movements that started in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria were not of her devising. Events began to play out that had no clear path to what was the best resolution. Would the Middle East be a safer place if Libya was still in civil war like Syria?

Libya is still in civil war! How are you trumpeting Clinton's successes if you don't know this? These are the top headlines from Libya according to Google News:
IS could expand from Libya but faces hostile environment
JOHN R BRADLEY on ISIS's barbaric new crucible of terror
Those who think US troops should be in Libya are wrong
...
Can Peace Deal Bring Relief to South Libya's 'Chinese Camp'?

This is Wikipedia's map of the "current military situation in Libya:"


Does that look a nation where the United States brought peace to you?

Quote
You claim to be non-interventionist, but blame Clinton for the rise of ISIS, yet the only way that probably would have been avoided would be if the U.S. had maintained a significant fighting force in Iraq.

Clinton was a Senator in 2003. She voted to invade Iraq in the first place. She had an opportunity to lead, and failed. ISIS existed in Iraq during the US occupation.

Quote
The region has been screwed up for decades and I haven't seen any evidence that someone other than Clinton with any significantly different foreign policy would have resulted in any better situation over there.
Then let's stop voting in people who want to intervene in the region. You and I both know that it won't get anything done. So let's stop wasting blood and treasure there.

Okay, so we both agree then that while the private email server can be defined as some other kind of failure, it was NOT a foreign policy failure.

It seems like your main beef foreign policy beef with Clinton is that you hold her responsible for the mess that the Middle East is in, but you really don't paint a good picture for who a good alternative candidate is in terms of foreign policy. Your ideal candidate would be someone who as a member of congress never voted to invade Iraq, as Sec. of State in 2009-12 would have somehow solved all the problems in the Middle East and have had perfect foresight to prevent future problems and would be totally non-interventionist at the same time. Good luck finding anything even close to that among any of the candidates out there. Only Paul is non-interventionist. A few were against the Iraq War. I think only Carson expressed initial concern about going into Afghanistan. But I seriously doubt any of them would have done any better job as Sec of State and a good many of them would have probably pushed the administration in the direction of invading Syria. Regarding a Clinton foreign policy win - none of the Republicans would have wanted to lift the Cuban embargo. It is conceivable Sanders would have.

Thus I still hold that despite past failures, Clinton's foreign policy track record is better than any other candidate out there. To put it in a less positive way, I'd rather take the devil I know versus the devil I don't know who looks even worse.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #76 on: December 04, 2015, 06:34:22 AM »
Best theories I've heard on the Republican race. Donald Trump is just running as a favor for Bill Clinton. Or, it's demographically impossible for a Republican to win a presidential election in 2016, and everyone knows it.

I'm pretty sure the Republicans have decided to run clowns for President to distract everyone from the fact that they're winning everything else, from the Congress right on down to state legislatures and gubernatorial races. In about ten years they're going to have a really full bench for future electioneering and the Democrats won't have squat. Hell, they don't seem to now.

Yes, an even stronger fact than "Republicans can't win a presidential election" is "Republicans can't lose the House of Congress." That's just the facts of how these things are set up at this point. This set up pushes the Republicans to the right (primaries are all that matter for the vast majority of representatives). Ironically,  that pushes Democrats to the right as well. Democrats can move right and gain votes in the center. They have nothing to lose on the left because Democratic primaries are less about litmus tests and more about the "who can beat the Republican" test.

The problem facing Republicans is that as they continue to double down on their base of white, angry conservatives, who Trump knows how to whip into a frenzy, everyone can see that their base is becoming smaller and smaller as the demographics continue to move the other direction. They have gerrymandered themselves into holding onto Congress for the time being, but this is a temporary solution at best. Their best solution is to focus on widening the base and moving back towards the center to appeal to more moderate minorities, yet their current base and the power it holds over the party will not allow this to happen. From a Political Science perspective, this is absolutely fascinating. From a personal perspective, watching a demagogue like Trump whip his followers into a frenzy, this is damn frightening.

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2883
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #77 on: December 04, 2015, 06:55:42 AM »
...

I don't think you're having this discussion in good faith. You didn't know that Libya has an ongoing civil war, but your post after learning that didn't reflect any consideration of how that fact might alter your perception of Clinton's success. Instead you moved the goalposts - instead of discussing whether Clinton has been successful in her foreign policy you want to shift the discussion to who is a better candidate than her.

Quote
Your ideal candidate would be someone who as a member of congress never voted to invade Iraq, as Sec. of State in 2009-12 would have somehow solved all the problems in the Middle East and have had perfect foresight to prevent future problems and would be totally non-interventionist at the same time. Good luck finding anything even close to that among any of the candidates out there.
This is a nonsensical strawman version of what I have argued so far. I would prefer somebody less experienced to a candidate like Clinton who has been tested and failed.

I don't think Clinton can count as "the devil you know" when you didn't know the outcome of one of her major foreign policy projects.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #78 on: December 04, 2015, 07:19:08 AM »
...

I don't think you're having this discussion in good faith. You didn't know that Libya has an ongoing civil war, but your post after learning that didn't reflect any consideration of how that fact might alter your perception of Clinton's success. Instead you moved the goalposts - instead of discussing whether Clinton has been successful in her foreign policy you want to shift the discussion to who is a better candidate than her.

Quote
Your ideal candidate would be someone who as a member of congress never voted to invade Iraq, as Sec. of State in 2009-12 would have somehow solved all the problems in the Middle East and have had perfect foresight to prevent future problems and would be totally non-interventionist at the same time. Good luck finding anything even close to that among any of the candidates out there.
This is a nonsensical strawman version of what I have argued so far. I would prefer somebody less experienced to a candidate like Clinton who has been tested and failed.

I don't think Clinton can count as "the devil you know" when you didn't know the outcome of one of her major foreign policy projects.

I didn't pursue ANY particular trouble areas in the Middle East because it seemed like you were basically holding Clinton up to unreasonable expectations in general. I don't deny that outcome in Libya and other areas in the Middle East have not been as we would have liked. I also think it is unlikely that ANYTHING the US did while Clinton was Secretary of State would have likely made things any better. Can you honestly say that we would be in a better situation if Kaddafi was in power in Libya and that nation was now another Syria?

I don't think I am presenting a strawman.  You are blaming Clinton for not being able to solve almost every major existing problem (except for the Palestinian situation) in the Middle East during her tenure as Sec of State. To top it off, the only solution you accept as legit is non-interventionism, however, you also blame Clinton for the rise of ISIS which would have only been prevented by even MORE interventionism. Thus, the ideal candidate I presented you with isn't a strawman, but rather a reflection of your unreasonable and contradictory expectations.

While it is possible to criticize Clinton's foreign policy performance in a vacuum, the whole point of any consideration of Clinton is the selection of a President. Thus it is entirely reasonable to compare her foreign policy credentials, successes and yes, failures, against other candidates experiences and positions. I don't claim that Clinton is pefect or even necessarily likeable. I do think in terms of foreign policy, she is likely the best choice in regards to a group of alternatives that are worse, some MUCH worse.

StetsTerhune

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 420
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #79 on: December 04, 2015, 07:36:46 AM »
Best theories I've heard on the Republican race. Donald Trump is just running as a favor for Bill Clinton. Or, it's demographically impossible for a Republican to win a presidential election in 2016, and everyone knows it.

I'm pretty sure the Republicans have decided to run clowns for President to distract everyone from the fact that they're winning everything else, from the Congress right on down to state legislatures and gubernatorial races. In about ten years they're going to have a really full bench for future electioneering and the Democrats won't have squat. Hell, they don't seem to now.

Yes, an even stronger fact than "Republicans can't win a presidential election" is "Republicans can't lose the House of Congress." That's just the facts of how these things are set up at this point. This set up pushes the Republicans to the right (primaries are all that matter for the vast majority of representatives). Ironically,  that pushes Democrats to the right as well. Democrats can move right and gain votes in the center. They have nothing to lose on the left because Democratic primaries are less about litmus tests and more about the "who can beat the Republican" test.

The problem facing Republicans is that as they continue to double down on their base of white, angry conservatives, who Trump knows how to whip into a frenzy, everyone can see that their base is becoming smaller and smaller as the demographics continue to move the other direction. They have gerrymandered themselves into holding onto Congress for the time being, but this is a temporary solution at best. Their best solution is to focus on widening the base and moving back towards the center to appeal to more moderate minorities, yet their current base and the power it holds over the party will not allow this to happen. From a Political Science perspective, this is absolutely fascinating. From a personal perspective, watching a demagogue like Trump whip his followers into a frenzy, this is damn frightening.

It is frightening. It's made me thankful that our two-party system generally keeps the fringes out of view. I think the Trump supporters are the same people that give far-right parties 10-15% of the vote in much of western Europe. Disaffected people looking for someone to blame.

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2883
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #80 on: December 04, 2015, 07:42:22 AM »
I didn't pursue ANY particular trouble areas in the Middle East because it seemed like you were basically holding Clinton up to unreasonable expectations in general. I don't deny that outcome in Libya and other areas in the Middle East have not been as we would have liked. I also think it is unlikely that ANYTHING the US did while Clinton was Secretary of State would have likely made things any better. Can you honestly say that we would be in a better situation if Kaddafi was in power in Libya and that nation was now another Syria?
You're uninformed on this topic. Libya is in no way in a better condition than Syria is.

Quote
I don't think I am presenting a strawman.  You are blaming Clinton for not being able to solve almost every major existing problem (except for the Palestinian situation) in the Middle East during her tenure as Sec of State. To top it off, the only solution you accept as legit is non-interventionism, however, you also blame Clinton for the rise of ISIS which would have only been prevented by even MORE interventionism.
You aren't acknowledging the "vote not to invade Iraq in the first place" option that Clinton had in 2003. Clinton was one of the more well-known Senators in 2003 and had she shown leadership by opposing the war, she might have gotten some traction. Claiming that interventionism would have been the only way to prevent ISIS from rising makes no sense, when interventionism created the vacuum that ISIS is filling.

I don't apologize for expecting people who take on a job to do it well. You seem to think it's unfair to judge Clinton on whether her actions led to improvements where she involved herself, because making improvements is really hard. I think it's dangerous to have a President who isn't aware that there are limits to what the government can accomplish.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #81 on: December 04, 2015, 07:44:03 AM »
The problem facing Republicans is that as they continue to double down on their base of white, angry conservatives, who Trump knows how to whip into a frenzy, everyone can see that their base is becoming smaller and smaller as the demographics continue to move the other direction. They have gerrymandered themselves into holding onto Congress for the time being, but this is a temporary solution at best. Their best solution is to focus on widening the base and moving back towards the center to appeal to more moderate minorities, yet their current base and the power it holds over the party will not allow this to happen. From a Political Science perspective, this is absolutely fascinating. From a personal perspective, watching a demagogue like Trump whip his followers into a frenzy, this is damn frightening.

It is frightening. It's made me thankful that our two-party system generally keeps the fringes out of view. I think the Trump supporters are the same people that give far-right parties 10-15% of the vote in much of western Europe. Disaffected people looking for someone to blame.

Yes, the two party system, for all its flaws, has really done a good job of filtering out completely outrageous, radical candidates. Sure, Democrats hated Reagan and Bush II and Republicans hated Clinton and Obama, but we've never elected a really radical, fringe president.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #82 on: December 04, 2015, 08:09:30 AM »
I didn't pursue ANY particular trouble areas in the Middle East because it seemed like you were basically holding Clinton up to unreasonable expectations in general. I don't deny that outcome in Libya and other areas in the Middle East have not been as we would have liked. I also think it is unlikely that ANYTHING the US did while Clinton was Secretary of State would have likely made things any better. Can you honestly say that we would be in a better situation if Kaddafi was in power in Libya and that nation was now another Syria?
You're uninformed on this topic. Libya is in no way in a better condition than Syria is.

Quote
I don't think I am presenting a strawman.  You are blaming Clinton for not being able to solve almost every major existing problem (except for the Palestinian situation) in the Middle East during her tenure as Sec of State. To top it off, the only solution you accept as legit is non-interventionism, however, you also blame Clinton for the rise of ISIS which would have only been prevented by even MORE interventionism.
You aren't acknowledging the "vote not to invade Iraq in the first place" option that Clinton had in 2003. Clinton was one of the more well-known Senators in 2003 and had she shown leadership by opposing the war, she might have gotten some traction. Claiming that interventionism would have been the only way to prevent ISIS from rising makes no sense, when interventionism created the vacuum that ISIS is filling.

I don't apologize for expecting people who take on a job to do it well. You seem to think it's unfair to judge Clinton on whether her actions led to improvements where she involved herself, because making improvements is really hard. I think it's dangerous to have a President who isn't aware that there are limits to what the government can accomplish.

Forget whether present day Libya is worse or better than present day Syria. I doubt either of us have the knowledge to really make a good case one way or the other. My point is that you seem to expect that if the US had not intervened in Libya, that Libya (and the Middle East) would be a better, more stable place and that assumption is hypothetical at best and naive at worst. Would a Libya with Kaddafi in power that is in civil war like Syria with Sadat be a better place? That seems to be the most logical alternative if the US had not intervened and Kaddafi has managed to stay in power. I suppose it is possible that Kaddafi could have won the civil war. Its really hard to say one way or the other.

Okay, you hold Clinton's vote against her in 2003, placing blame for the Iraq War and the situations leading to ISIS on her shoulders. I guess EVERYONE who supported that war also hold the blame as well. So the only candidates who can't be blamed for ISIS are Sanders, Paul, Trump and perhaps Carson. Everyone else either voted for the war or supported it at the time.

You are being unreasonable if you blame a person for failing to fill a hole the size of a grand canyon with a shovel in the matter of six years. The problems in the Middle East are the combined results of over a century of failed policy decisions, starting with colonial imperialism and the countries that were created by colonial powers. Current day problems usually amount to no-win situations in which you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. In any given situation, non-intervention can be just as equally or more wrong than intervening. Or vice versa. To mix metaphors, its a damned minefield that like it or not we have to traverse and in terms of experience I think Clinton is one of the better (if not best) candidates among those we have available to navigate that minefield.

So for all your criticism of Clinton, who among the other candidate is your preferred alternative to handle the foreign policy troubles in general and the Middle East specifically?

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2883
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #83 on: December 04, 2015, 08:20:52 AM »
Forget whether present day Libya is worse or better than present day Syria. I doubt either of us have the knowledge to really make a good case one way or the other. My point is that you seem to expect that if the US had not intervened in Libya, that Libya (and the Middle East) would be a better, more stable place and that assumption is hypothetical at best and naive at worst. Would a Libya with Kaddafi in power that is in civil war like Syria with Sadat be a better place? That seems to be the most logical alternative if the US had not intervened and Kaddafi has managed to stay in power. I suppose it is possible that Kaddafi could have won the civil war. Its really hard to say one way or the other.

It's Assad. Anwar Sadat was Egyptian and died in 1981.

I'll sum this up by saying that when the US spends money and risks lives to intervene in a country, it should make things better there. I agree that Libya might still be in a civil war if we hadn't intervened, just as you learned it is in reality this morning. If the best you can say about the war against Libya is that it didn't accomplish anything, I count that as a failure.

Quote
Okay, you hold Clinton's vote against her in 2003, placing blame for the Iraq War and the situations leading to ISIS on her shoulders. I guess EVERYONE who supported that war also hold the blame as well.

Certainly every legislator who voted for it does.

Quote
You are being unreasonable if you blame a person for failing to fill a hole the size of a grand canyon with a shovel in the matter of six years. The problems in the Middle East are the combined results of over a century of failed policy decisions, starting with colonial imperialism and the countries that were created by colonial powers. Current day problems usually amount to no-win situations in which you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. In any given situation, non-intervention can be just as equally or more wrong than intervening. Or vice versa. To mix metaphors, its a damned minefield that like it or not we have to traverse and in terms of experience I think Clinton is one of the better (if not best) candidates among those we have available to navigate that minefield.
So it's impossible for anybody to know what to do, and we shouldn't hold government officials to any standard of performance. What's the point of picking the most experienced person, then?

Quote
So for all your criticism of Clinton, who among the other candidate is your preferred alternative to handle the foreign policy troubles in general and the Middle East specifically?
I think Rand Paul would mostly stay out of things, but he obviously isn't going to win the nomination, and he's not a great candidate for other reasons (no executive experience, appears to be a simply unpleasant person). I'm very disappointed in the 2016 field and it gives me a lot of trepidation. I have nobody to hold up and say "this person has the answer." But that doesn't justify pretending that Hillary Clinton was a successful Secretary of State.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #84 on: December 04, 2015, 09:28:16 AM »
Forget whether present day Libya is worse or better than present day Syria. I doubt either of us have the knowledge to really make a good case one way or the other. My point is that you seem to expect that if the US had not intervened in Libya, that Libya (and the Middle East) would be a better, more stable place and that assumption is hypothetical at best and naive at worst. Would a Libya with Kaddafi in power that is in civil war like Syria with Sadat be a better place? That seems to be the most logical alternative if the US had not intervened and Kaddafi has managed to stay in power. I suppose it is possible that Kaddafi could have won the civil war. Its really hard to say one way or the other.

It's Assad. Anwar Sadat was Egyptian and died in 1981.

Yeah, my bad on that one. I got in a hurry and my hands were typing faster than my brain in regards to Middle East leader names and personalities.


I'll sum this up by saying that when the US spends money and risks lives to intervene in a country, it should make things better there. I agree that Libya might still be in a civil war if we hadn't intervened, just as you learned it is in reality this morning. If the best you can say about the war against Libya is that it didn't accomplish anything, I count that as a failure.

For Libya as a whole, I count it more as NOT a success than a failure. Libya was likely an unwinnable situation. I do agree that what happened in Benghazi was a failure in that there should have been better security and was foreseeable in that requests for extra security were made but didn't happen.

Quote
Okay, you hold Clinton's vote against her in 2003, placing blame for the Iraq War and the situations leading to ISIS on her shoulders. I guess EVERYONE who supported that war also hold the blame as well.

Certainly every legislator who voted for it does.

Not just the legislators, but every citizen who supported toppling Hussein. Ultimately those legislators were responding to the public will, which according to some estimates was 60% in favor at one time or another prior to the invasion. If there had been sufficient numbers against it, the war likely wouldn't have happened. Of the candidates, I think only a handful say that they didn't support Iraq invasion at the time.

Quote
You are being unreasonable if you blame a person for failing to fill a hole the size of a grand canyon with a shovel in the matter of six years. The problems in the Middle East are the combined results of over a century of failed policy decisions, starting with colonial imperialism and the countries that were created by colonial powers. Current day problems usually amount to no-win situations in which you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. In any given situation, non-intervention can be just as equally or more wrong than intervening. Or vice versa. To mix metaphors, its a damned minefield that like it or not we have to traverse and in terms of experience I think Clinton is one of the better (if not best) candidates among those we have available to navigate that minefield.
So it's impossible for anybody to know what to do, and we shouldn't hold government officials to any standard of performance. What's the point of picking the most experienced person, then?

A standard of performance, YES.

YOUR apparent standard of performance, NO.

To use another metaphor, you seem to want to grade a test with an unsolvable question worth ten points and deduct the full ten points for not having a correct answer. The method of grading then, should not be so much whether the answer is correct - because that is impossible. To be fair to the student you would need to use other criteria, probably grading based upon how well the answer communicates the students understanding of primary concepts contained within the question.

The metaphor I've described is obviously limited in its applicability to the real question at hand - judging an administration's foreign policy. I don't pretend to have all the answers in how best to judge foreign policy. Some of it is admittedly gut emotion. For instance, I judge the Iraq War as failed foreign policy based on the follow reasons:
1. Iraq posed no immediate threat to the US nor US interests
2. The US toppled a stable government and replaced it with an unstable government that is still unstable 13 years later

When trying to judge the foreign policy in Libya, it is more difficult for me. Libya was already unstable. It is difficult to screw up something that is already screwed up. At the time, I thought the Libya intervention was the right thing to do. It obviously didn't turn out so well and I can see why you would consider it a failure. My sympathy towards supporting people wanting to be free and human rights in general when it comes to a situation that is already FUBAR makes me a less non-interventionist, I suppose.

Now, a harsh realpolitik judgement criteria might be the following.
1. Was U.S. interests at stake? (not really for Libya, as far as I know)
2. Did policy make a situation more or less stable? (arguably less, but ultimately not really knowable)

Others who are more humanitarian might include criteria such as:
3. Did the U.S. act to promote humanitarian principles? (for Libya, yes)

I think it was the humanitarian question that ultimately tipped the balance for the US deciding to intervene in Libya. Thus even if it was a failure, I think it was a reasonable choice to make in a no-win situation.

Quote
So for all your criticism of Clinton, who among the other candidate is your preferred alternative to handle the foreign policy troubles in general and the Middle East specifically?
I think Rand Paul would mostly stay out of things, but he obviously isn't going to win the nomination, and he's not a great candidate for other reasons (no executive experience, appears to be a simply unpleasant person). I'm very disappointed in the 2016 field and it gives me a lot of trepidation. I have nobody to hold up and say "this person has the answer." But that doesn't justify pretending that Hillary Clinton was a successful Secretary of State.

You accuse me of presenting strawmen, but continue to repeat one yourself. I never offered judgement that Clinton was a successful Secretary of State.

If you go back and read the thread, I merely countered your own initial reply in which you claimed that her foreign policy experience was that of failure. I have offered several examples of her successes. Some of those examples you have even agreed were successes. Thus, we should both agree that her foreign policy experience is associated with failures AND successes. The degree of which one way or the other is an argument that I really don't want to wade into and probably neither of us are really qualified to make.

In addition, I have repeated that in terms of judging her as a candidate for President in the area of foreign policy, one needs to judge her in relation to the other candidates, their foreign policy experiences and positions. That fact that you can't find a candidate that you actually like, does NOT invalidate that comparison and my own conclusion that Clinton is one of the best among the candidates, and probably THE best among the likely nominees, in terms of foreign policy experience and positions, particularly for a person who is a non-interventionist.

Thus even though you seem to not like Clinton, she is possibly the best of a bad set of alternatives.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2015, 09:30:55 AM by dramaman »

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7189
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #85 on: December 04, 2015, 09:33:12 AM »

If you go back and read the thread, I merely countered your own initial reply in which you claimed that her foreign policy experience was that of failure. I have offered several examples of her successes. Some of those examples you have even agreed were successes. Thus, we should both agree that her foreign policy experience is associated with failures AND successes. The degree of which one way or the other is an argument that I really don't want to wade into and probably neither of us are really qualified to make.

In addition, I have repeated that in terms of judging her as a candidate for President in the area of foreign policy, one needs to judge her in relation to the other candidates, their foreign policy experiences and positions. That fact that you can't find a candidate that you actually like, does NOT invalidate that comparison and my own conclusion that Clinton is one of the best among the candidates, and probably THE best among the likely nominees, in terms of foreign policy experience and positions, particularly for a person who is a non-interventionist.

Thus even though you seem to not like Clinton, she is possibly the best of a bad set of alternatives.
Careful dramaman, there's no room for nuance on the internet :-)
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2883
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #86 on: December 04, 2015, 09:42:11 AM »
Thus, we should both agree that her foreign policy experience is associated with failures AND successes. The degree of which one way or the other is an argument that I really don't want to wade into and probably neither of us are really qualified to make.

There is no point to this conversation, then. I hope you're right about Clinton, because I'm pretty sure she'll be President. I'm not looking forward to it.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #87 on: December 04, 2015, 09:47:59 AM »
Thus, we should both agree that her foreign policy experience is associated with failures AND successes. The degree of which one way or the other is an argument that I really don't want to wade into and probably neither of us are really qualified to make.

There is no point to this conversation, then. I hope you're right about Clinton, because I'm pretty sure she'll be President. I'm not looking forward to it.

In terms of foreign policy challenges that the future president will likely be facing, I see the choice of president as kind of like choosing the best anesthesia for a root canal. ;)  At some point or another, its almost certain that I won't be enjoying it.

Vertical Mode

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 467
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Boston, MA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #88 on: December 04, 2015, 10:44:36 AM »
I've finally caught up reading this thread. You all make fair points, there are certainly downsides to each of the options we currently have.

Anyone think the person who might ultimately be president could not even be in the race at this point? Just a feeling, but there seems to be so much discontent around our menu of candidates that it wouldn't surprise me if either:

a) the Republicans eschew (a toxic, yet poll-leading) Trump and somehow draft Mitt Romney or another moderate out of retirement to run down the center. Everyone already knows who he is, and he's got the resources and party establishment backing to quickly overtake everyone else.

b) Someone nationally recognized and generally well-respected appears out of the woodwork and mobilizes a tactically effective campaign. People with the resources to do this might be someone like: Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Dan Gilbert (Midwesterners may know him well enough to give him leverage in Iowa), or even Bill McRaven (would win a LOT of respect quickly, once people learn who he is). Not that any of these people are necessarily even interested in participating in the shitstorm of US politics, just food for thought. Elon Musk would probably have a really good shot if he were eligible.

With the way information and ideas can spread with the advent of social media and the 24-hour news cycle, a protracted but intense campaign near the critical election dates might be able to sway voters. Our system has been analyzed to death from so many different angles that someone may believe they have figured out an alternate path to winning votes.
"That is why you will never be a good detective, Cato. It's so obvious, it cannot POSSIBLY be a trap..."

Link to my Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/trending-vertical-vertical-modes-journal/

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2763
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #89 on: December 04, 2015, 10:55:33 AM »
I've finally caught up reading this thread. You all make fair points, there are certainly downsides to each of the options we currently have.

Anyone think the person who might ultimately be president could not even be in the race at this point?

No.  Or at least, not unless there's a brokered convention.  There's not enough time for someone not currently in the race to win enough primaries.

Quote
Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg,

Neither of these have any interest or qualifications.

Quote
Dan Gilbert (Midwesterners may know him well enough to give him leverage in Iowa), or even Bill McRaven (would win a LOT of respect quickly, once people learn who he is).

Who?  Someone without substantial national name recognition has no shot without a full campaign.

Quote
Elon Musk would probably have a really good shot if he were eligible.

No.  Business-people do not make the jump to President without substantial government experience.  See Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, and Herman Cain.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4515
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #90 on: December 04, 2015, 10:59:45 AM »
I've finally caught up reading this thread. You all make fair points, there are certainly downsides to each of the options we currently have.

Anyone think the person who might ultimately be president could not even be in the race at this point? Just a feeling, but there seems to be so much discontent around our menu of candidates that it wouldn't surprise me if either:

a) the Republicans eschew (a toxic, yet poll-leading) Trump and somehow draft Mitt Romney or another moderate out of retirement to run down the center. Everyone already knows who he is, and he's got the resources and party establishment backing to quickly overtake everyone else.

b) Someone nationally recognized and generally well-respected appears out of the woodwork and mobilizes a tactically effective campaign. People with the resources to do this might be someone like: Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Dan Gilbert (Midwesterners may know him well enough to give him leverage in Iowa), or even Bill McRaven (would win a LOT of respect quickly, once people learn who he is). Not that any of these people are necessarily even interested in participating in the shitstorm of US politics, just food for thought. Elon Musk would probably have a really good shot if he were eligible.

With the way information and ideas can spread with the advent of social media and the 24-hour news cycle, a protracted but intense campaign near the critical election dates might be able to sway voters. Our system has been analyzed to death from so many different angles that someone may believe they have figured out an alternate path to winning votes.
ROFL, the GOP is not going to follow a liberal. 

trailrated

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1137
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Bay Area Ca
  • a smooth sea never made a skilled sailor
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #91 on: December 04, 2015, 11:00:41 AM »
a) the Republicans eschew (a toxic, yet poll-leading) Trump and somehow draft Mitt Romney or another moderate out of retirement to run down the center. Everyone already knows who he is, and he's got the resources and party establishment backing to quickly overtake everyone else.

While this is compelling I have a hard time believing adding to an already cluttered Republican field would help thin the herd and unite the base around someone. However, I could absolutely see this happening on the Democrat side. If for some reason the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton turns up something crazy enough to severely damage her chance of winning her party's nomination I think there would be a massive effort by the Democrat establishment to prop someone up besides Bernie. With O'Malley's inability to catch on at this point in the race they would have to bring someone fresh in. Be it Al Gore, John Kerry, maybe even Warren or someone I haven't thought of yet.

Either way every day that goes by it is increasingly less likely due to all the groundwork that has to be done to get on the Ballot in each primary state.
"What matters most is how well you walk through the fire. "

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4515
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #92 on: December 04, 2015, 11:03:05 AM »
a) the Republicans eschew (a toxic, yet poll-leading) Trump and somehow draft Mitt Romney or another moderate out of retirement to run down the center. Everyone already knows who he is, and he's got the resources and party establishment backing to quickly overtake everyone else.

While this is compelling I have a hard time believing adding to an already cluttered Republican field would help thin the herd and unite the base around someone. However, I could absolutely see this happening on the Democrat side. If for some reason the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton turns up something crazy enough to severely damage her chance of winning her party's nomination I think there would be a massive effort by the Democrat establishment to prop someone up besides Bernie. With O'Malley's inability to catch on at this point in the race they would have to bring someone fresh in. Be it Al Gore, John Kerry, maybe even Warren or someone I haven't thought of yet.

Either way every day that goes by it is increasingly less likely due to all the groundwork that has to be done to get on the Ballot in each primary state.
Why, Bernie seems popular.

trailrated

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1137
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Bay Area Ca
  • a smooth sea never made a skilled sailor
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #93 on: December 04, 2015, 11:10:56 AM »
a) the Republicans eschew (a toxic, yet poll-leading) Trump and somehow draft Mitt Romney or another moderate out of retirement to run down the center. Everyone already knows who he is, and he's got the resources and party establishment backing to quickly overtake everyone else.

While this is compelling I have a hard time believing adding to an already cluttered Republican field would help thin the herd and unite the base around someone. However, I could absolutely see this happening on the Democrat side. If for some reason the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton turns up something crazy enough to severely damage her chance of winning her party's nomination I think there would be a massive effort by the Democrat establishment to prop someone up besides Bernie. With O'Malley's inability to catch on at this point in the race they would have to bring someone fresh in. Be it Al Gore, John Kerry, maybe even Warren or someone I haven't thought of yet.

Either way every day that goes by it is increasingly less likely due to all the groundwork that has to be done to get on the Ballot in each primary state.
Why, Bernie seems popular.

I am not saying that he is not popular, or he does not have a legitimate shot. But if you look at the way the establishment democrats have set up the race so far it is to get Hillary elected. Bernie has the grass roots support and is more of a fringe candidate and he frightens the establishment. Much like Trump (not comparing them on stances or as people, but the situation is similar of a fringe candidate having success) on the republican side. He has crazy grass roots backing but the Republican establishment is hoping he crashes and burns and are horrified at the thought of him actually being the nominee.
"What matters most is how well you walk through the fire. "

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4515
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #94 on: December 04, 2015, 11:15:51 AM »
a) the Republicans eschew (a toxic, yet poll-leading) Trump and somehow draft Mitt Romney or another moderate out of retirement to run down the center. Everyone already knows who he is, and he's got the resources and party establishment backing to quickly overtake everyone else.

While this is compelling I have a hard time believing adding to an already cluttered Republican field would help thin the herd and unite the base around someone. However, I could absolutely see this happening on the Democrat side. If for some reason the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton turns up something crazy enough to severely damage her chance of winning her party's nomination I think there would be a massive effort by the Democrat establishment to prop someone up besides Bernie. With O'Malley's inability to catch on at this point in the race they would have to bring someone fresh in. Be it Al Gore, John Kerry, maybe even Warren or someone I haven't thought of yet.

Either way every day that goes by it is increasingly less likely due to all the groundwork that has to be done to get on the Ballot in each primary state.
Why, Bernie seems popular.

I am not saying that he is not popular, or he does not have a legitimate shot. But if you look at the way the establishment democrats have set up the race so far it is to get Hillary elected. Bernie has the grass roots support and is more of a fringe candidate and he frightens the establishment. Much like Trump (not comparing them on stances or as people, but the situation is similar of a fringe candidate having success) on the republican side. He has crazy grass roots backing but the Republican establishment is hoping he crashes and burns and are horrified at the thought of him actually being the nominee.
Eh, this seems a repeat of Obama, the GOP leadership did not like him running either.  The dems were fine with supporting him. 

trailrated

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1137
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Bay Area Ca
  • a smooth sea never made a skilled sailor
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #95 on: December 04, 2015, 11:38:19 AM »
a) the Republicans eschew (a toxic, yet poll-leading) Trump and somehow draft Mitt Romney or another moderate out of retirement to run down the center. Everyone already knows who he is, and he's got the resources and party establishment backing to quickly overtake everyone else.

While this is compelling I have a hard time believing adding to an already cluttered Republican field would help thin the herd and unite the base around someone. However, I could absolutely see this happening on the Democrat side. If for some reason the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton turns up something crazy enough to severely damage her chance of winning her party's nomination I think there would be a massive effort by the Democrat establishment to prop someone up besides Bernie. With O'Malley's inability to catch on at this point in the race they would have to bring someone fresh in. Be it Al Gore, John Kerry, maybe even Warren or someone I haven't thought of yet.

Either way every day that goes by it is increasingly less likely due to all the groundwork that has to be done to get on the Ballot in each primary state.
Why, Bernie seems popular.

I am not saying that he is not popular, or he does not have a legitimate shot. But if you look at the way the establishment democrats have set up the race so far it is to get Hillary elected. Bernie has the grass roots support and is more of a fringe candidate and he frightens the establishment. Much like Trump (not comparing them on stances or as people, but the situation is similar of a fringe candidate having success) on the republican side. He has crazy grass roots backing but the Republican establishment is hoping he crashes and burns and are horrified at the thought of him actually being the nominee.
Eh, this seems a repeat of Obama, the GOP leadership did not like him running either.  The dems were fine with supporting him.

What does the GOP leadership have to do with who wins the Democrat nominee? My point was the democrat establishment has it in the bag for Hillary. And if she cannot win by some crazy happening I think they would scramble to prop someone else up over Bernie.
"What matters most is how well you walk through the fire. "

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2728
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #96 on: December 04, 2015, 11:50:32 AM »
I've finally caught up reading this thread. You all make fair points, there are certainly downsides to each of the options we currently have.

Anyone think the person who might ultimately be president could not even be in the race at this point?

No.  For better or worse, we have let our electoral process get so completely out of hand that even though we are almost a year away from the election, any person who briefly contemplated being a candidate would quickly decide that he or she was "too late" to pull together a team and the money necessary to do it.  So we are stuck with the people we currently have.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2728
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #97 on: December 04, 2015, 11:54:09 AM »
What does the GOP leadership have to do with who wins the Democrat nominee?

It's "Democratic," not "Democrat."  "Democratic" is an adjective.  "Democrat" is a noun.  Despite the Republicans' concerted effort for the past five years or so to make "Democrat" into a slur by using it in place of the adjective.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Vertical Mode

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 467
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Boston, MA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #98 on: December 04, 2015, 12:11:12 PM »
I've finally caught up reading this thread. You all make fair points, there are certainly downsides to each of the options we currently have.

Anyone think the person who might ultimately be president could not even be in the race at this point?

No.  Or at least, not unless there's a brokered convention.  There's not enough time for someone not currently in the race to win enough primaries.

Quote
Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg,

Neither of these have any interest or qualifications.

Quote
Dan Gilbert (Midwesterners may know him well enough to give him leverage in Iowa), or even Bill McRaven (would win a LOT of respect quickly, once people learn who he is).

Who?  Someone without substantial national name recognition has no shot without a full campaign.

Quote
Elon Musk would probably have a really good shot if he were eligible.

No.  Business-people do not make the jump to President without substantial government experience.  See Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, and Herman Cain.

Assuming the majority of people would not vote for a third-party candidate or unaffiliated candidate, this is all probably true. The question in my mind is whether it could be theoretically possible for someone to do an end-around and skip the Dem/GOP parties altogether. The primaries are a process that filters out moderate candidates that people might actually like to vote for in the general, and I feel like a lot of people are probably tired of the "go extreme and then spin your own words to bolt for the center" charade. In that case, winning primaries doesn't count for much. You're right that Forbes, Perot, and Cain all failing suggests that it's highly unlikely - however, none of them were running against a field of candidates this weak and led by the "LOL, let's see how far this goes" candidate. People think the establishment sucks; why can't the same phenomenon that has Trump leading work for someone a bit more agreeable and less xenophobic?

Is the anti-incumbent environment strong enough for people to weight fresh ideas and perspective more heavily than gov't experience (AKA "part of the problem")? Probably not for president yet, but in 2008 I honestly thought Obama had little chance until the late polling numbers in advance of the general started rolling in, so what do I know? If you had told me a year ago that Sanders would be where he is right now, I'm not sure I'd have believed that either.

I submit that your skepticism is probably well-founded and close to the pin with respect to how things will play out. It kind of makes me sad that I should resign myself to picking from a basket of what I feel are mostly rotten fruit.
"That is why you will never be a good detective, Cato. It's so obvious, it cannot POSSIBLY be a trap..."

Link to my Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/trending-vertical-vertical-modes-journal/

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2439
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #99 on: December 04, 2015, 12:13:00 PM »
What does the GOP leadership have to do with who wins the Democrat nominee?

It's "Democratic," not "Democrat."  "Democratic" is an adjective.  "Democrat" is a noun.  Despite the Republicans' concerted effort for the past five years or so to make "Democrat" into a slur by using it in place of the adjective.

Why is it a slur? I hear "Democrat" and don't think of anything other than the DNC. What connotations does it have to you?