Donald vs Hillary

[Guest]

LOL. I can go on the internet and punch in Hillary Clinton's lies and plenty of stuff on her and her lying ways comes up. So, what's your point?

Your persona on this board is obviously a joke; but I am avoiding work right now so let's play along.

Let's start with a little critical thinking. The internet is certainly full of fake stories and we often like to read news that validates our established positions, so how do you break out of your filter bubble and determine what is true?

You suggested that you trust a politician you support and who says things you like to hear. I (and others) countered with a fact checking organization that has won a Pulitzer Prize for it's work during campaigns. This non-partisan, award winning organization along with other debunking sites like Snopes have shown that Trump lies more than almost everyone else in politics. Which sources are more likely to be accurate, award winning non-partisan agencies or the conservative blogosphere?

You obviously adore Hillary. So what will she do to make America great again if she becomes President? Do you have anything to offer.

Trump offers real change from the old establishment elite guard that Hillary works for and who has just about bankrupted America, and the American people.

America is great now. It has just gone through a significant period of growth and has very low unemployment. Though it has been cut significantly under Obama the US is still running a large deficit.

Trump's economic plans have been evaluated by Moody's, a non-partisan outside agency, which determined that his proposals would 'significantly hurt the economy' and increase the deficit. Plus it has already been pointed out to you that Trump plans to eliminate the restrictions put in place after the economic collapse of 08 to prevent a repeat. Trump's economic advisers are this evil, elite guard you refer to as the enemy and claim Hillary works for. They are proposing a "trickle down" plan that benefits elites and will saddle the US with higher deficits. Even conservative economist Ben Stein on Fox News pointed out that Trump's plan defies logic and evidence.

Hillary on the other hand will maintain restrictions on the banking industry and will not hand out a tax reduction to the 0.1%. She also plans to increase access to healthcare and education. Who is doing the bidding of the elite?

So are you a troll or just so ignorant that you would back a guy promoting a wishlist for the old guard elites, that will significantly hurt the economy, raise the deficit and increase unemployment?

[?Impact]

Trump lies more than almost everyone else in politics

Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf lost his title.

[Moonlight Graham]

Because up until now the nominees all possessed the tact and diplomacy needed for the role. I realize that you don't like the policies that other GOP nominees promoted but that does not mean they had the glaring flaws in character and temperament that Trump has.

She was VP - not the nominee. There were likely some grumbling but since the presidential nominee was more than suitable it was a non-issue.

Trump is definitely above and beyond everyone else with his rhetoric, but you'll never convince me the GOP is trying to undermine him for that reason. All of sudden they grew a sense of ethics and will undermine their party's chances for the presidency because of it? HA! I'm not that naive.

[Moonlight Graham]

This is seriously deluded. The letter was signed by people from several Republican administrations...

The Nixon/Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr. admins had quite a few of the same people in them. Cheney and Rumsfeld go back to the Nixon/Ford admin. Bush Sr was Reagan's VP and brought many of those guys, and Bush Jr brought a lot of daddy's buddies in.

and the US has not 'expanded' through military or any other means in a century.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Moonlight Graham

[cybercoma]

He's intentionally misconstruing what you mean by "expanded."

[GostHacked]

He's intentionally misconstruing what you mean by "expanded."

You don't need a military to expand, but it has seemed to help out in just that case.

[-TSS-]

Hillary will campaign that she will be a "nothing will change"-president.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Hillary will campaign that she will be a "nothing will change"-president.

In other words she will be a "nothing" president!!

[?Impact]

In other words she will be a "nothing" president!!

If it ain't fixed, don't break it.

[CITIZEN_2015]

If it ain't fixed, don't break it.

But it is broken and needs fixing.

[Guest]

But it is broken and needs fixing.

Please expand on what needs to be fixed?

[eyeball]

The relationship between the governed and the government.

[bush_cheney2004]

The relationship between the governed and the government.

Americans are not governed....government has lost the consent of citizens. Big difference....

[eyeball]

Well yeah, that's what I just said.

In our case things go the other way where much of the governed are lost without the consent of the government.

[Vega]

Over/under on Hillary not seeking a second term in 2020, setting up an extremely competitive battle between the old establishment Democrats, and the new progressive Berniecrats?

[CITIZEN_2015]

Please expand on what needs to be fixed?

The loss of power and prestige for the US, lack of foreign policy, expanding extremism in middle east and lack of decisive action by US, weak US foreign policies, a weak US president who remind me so much of Jimmy Carter.

[Guest]

The loss of power and prestige for the US, lack of foreign policy, expanding extremism in middle east and lack of decisive action by US, weak US foreign policies, a weak US president who remind me so much of Jimmy Carter.

It sounds like a list of personal feelings rather than factual statements. I would bet that those feelings are proportional to the amount of right wing US alternative media people consume. Anyway, let's start with Power and Prestige.

Prestige is a fairly easy one to tackle because the Pew Research Center tracks the perception of the US around the world. As expected it varies by nation and topic, but if you look at the overall US Favorability chart you will see generally high ratings for the US in 99. Next you will see them plummet after the start of the 'war on terror' and remain very low throughout the W. Bush years. Finally, you will see those numbers steadily climbing again under Obama and returning close to global prestige left by Bill Clinton. So it seems that Obama has very capably rescued US prestige. What Fox, Breitbart and The Donald are spinning, just ain't true.

The Chart: http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2015/06/BoP-Report-38.png

The Entire Report: http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/23/1-americas-global-image/

US power, post Cold War, is an interesting and topic. Ironically despite winning the cold war, the US emerged from it weaker with power and influence becoming far more difficult to assert over others. At one point countries had to be allied to a superpower, giving said power the freedom to make decisions unilaterally. When the Soviets collapsed, nations no longer needed the protection of either power and were more free to pursue their own interests. This meant a loss of influence for the US which could less easily dictate it's wishes to it's allies. Instead more negotiation and diplomacy were required.

George H.W Bush, Bill Clinton and Obama understood this, but W. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld did not. Their actions during the 'war on terror' showed an extreme misunderstanding of foreign affairs and led to the dismal worldwide prestige numbers cited above. I listened to a very good talk by Dan Carlin on this subject but can't find it; here are some excerpts and a link to a fantastic article about the subject which discusses foreign policy and Trump.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/08/a_trump_win_would_lead_to_a_nuclear_arms_race_and_a_collapse_of_sanctions.html

When the Cold War imploded, so did the entire system of international relations it had spawned. Power blocs dissolved; the subjects and allies in each now-shattered sphere of influence were free to pursue their own interests without regard to the former superpowers’ wishes. In the Middle East, Cold War politics had propped up artificial borders and oppressive regimes that otherwise would have collapsed a decade or so after World War II, along with the whole string of French and British colonies. When the Cold War ended, this collapse resumed—triggering the chaos in the region today.

In one of those ironies common to history, America won the Cold War but emerged from it weaker, not stronger. President George W. Bush’s strategic error lay in failing to grasp this fact. He, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld thought they’d entered a “uni-polar” era with the United States reigning as “the sole superpower,” able to impose its will with little effort or the need for pesky allies. They didn’t realize that the old tokens of power (tanks, missiles, atom bombs) and the old devices of leverage (Do what we ask or succumb to the Soviet bear) had lost much of their former potency and that, as a result, allies—and compromising with them on strategic goals—were now not just useful but necessary.

Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush, understood this even at the dawn of the new era. Hence his fervent campaign to preserve the vast alliance against Saddam Hussein during the 1990–91 Gulf War and his call for a cease-fire when the mission binding the alliance—ousting Iraq’s invasion forces from Kuwait—was complete. This awareness also informed the elder Bush’s decision not to rub America’s Cold War victory in Russia’s face.

Barack Obama, from early on in his presidency, understood very clearly these limits of power, the need for alliances, and the distinctions between interests andvital interests (and the levels of commitment that they justified) in this new multi-polar (or, in some ways, nonpolar) era.

*Edit: Spelling error that impacted understanding.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Guest

[cybercoma]

Americans are not governed....government has lost the consent of citizens. Big difference....

Among black communities it sure has.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Slick, The long time enemy (Communism) led by Soviet Union and Warsaw pact governments who believed in a doctrine that they must impose and expand their beliefs on the rest of civilized world by force only fell as a result of decisive policies, huge military spending and strong US (by republican president btw). Now there is a new enemy facing Western civilization and is much more dangerous with similar doctrine (yeah they don't have thousands of nuclear missiles directed at the west as yet but they have millions of suicide bombers and massive support among its population whereas the Soviet Empire did not have support among its population). Again decisive policies, huge military spending and a strong US (again by a future Republican president) will be needed to overcome this similar new and more dangerous enemy.

[Bonam]

Slick, The long time enemy (Communism) led by Soviet Union and Warsaw pact governments who believed in a doctrine that they must impose and expand their beliefs on the rest of civilized world by force only fell as a result of decisive policies, huge military spending and strong US (by republican president btw).

Not really... US opposition certainly served to impede the ambitions of the USSR abroad, but the reasons for its collapse were primarily internal. Communism fundamentally doesn't work and that is what really led to its downfall, which couldn't come too soon for a great many of its citizens.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Not really... US opposition certainly served to impede the ambitions of the USSR abroad, but the reasons for its collapse were primarily internal. Communism fundamentally doesn't work and that is what really led to its downfall, which couldn't come too soon for a great many of its citizens.

They tries to match US expenditure on military and nuclear missiles and in particular paranoid about star wars pursued by Reagan together with a bleeding expensive war in Afghanistan and to some extend they did match but only on the military expenditure resulting in a collapse of rest of economy for the civilian non-military population, widespread poverty and its internal collapse.

[Bonam]

They tries to match US expenditure on military and nuclear missiles and in particular paranoid about star wars pursued by Reagan together with a bleeding expensive war in Afghanistan and to some extend they did match but only on the military expenditure resulting in a collapse of rest of economy for the civilian non-military population, widespread poverty and its internal collapse.

Right but the underlying reason for all of this is because communist economies don't work. If communist economies worked as well as free markets, then the USSR could have matched the US in military expenditures and maintained a vibrant economy.

In any case, the same strategy will not have the same effect when it comes to countering fundamentalist Islam. For one, you are mostly confronting non-state groups, so just spending a lot on military and hoping they do the same and bankrupt themselves is not really applicable. Terrorists employ low cost methods. In fact, the state which is the greatest source of fundamentalist Islam (Saudi Arabia) actually receives a vast amount of military aid from the US.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Bonam

[CITIZEN_2015]

I have no argument that communism or communist economies don't work however it did survive for over 60 years and expanded all over the world not only limited to eastern Europe but also Africa and central America in fact all over the world (by force of course not choice). Especially during the weak Carter administration was the lowest point of Western democracies. However, the important point is that it was during the Republican presidency which forced the Soviets to spend a lot more on their military (because US did it they were forced to match) that brought about the collapse of Soviet Union and liberation of Eastern Europe. If it was another Democratic president the worst of which was Carter then that collapse would have never happened and we would have still deal with Soviets and it empire and go to sleep every night thinking of thousands of Soviet missiles directed at us.

No spending alone will not work in middle east but using the strong military (strong after several years of huge spending) will. Only The cancer cells must be taken out though not the whole region...

Edited August 18, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

[cybercoma]

Not really... US opposition certainly served to impede the ambitions of the USSR abroad, but the reasons for its collapse were primarily internal. Communism fundamentally doesn't work and that is what really led to its downfall, which couldn't come too soon for a great many of its citizens.

Authoritarian tyrannies don't work. Yeah.

[cybercoma]

Communism has never existed anywhere on earth.