US Foreign Policy and the Presidential Candidates

[mrswdk]

I was amused to see Trump pull level with Clinton in the polls today.

Alas, it might wear off a little once the Democrat race is over. But let's hope not.

[thegreekdog]

Just, for reference purposes, here is what the two leading candidates said about internet censorship for purposes of terrorism:

"You're going to hear all of the usual complaints - you know, freedom of speech, etc." - Hillary Clinton

"Somebody will say, 'Oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people" - Donald Trump

So at least they both agree on censoring the internet and the foolishness of the first amendment.

[Symmetry]

The only two candidates are Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump. The others are sideshows.

I'd go with Hilary if you want someone with foreign policy experience.

So...

Man #1: Hey, I want to vote for someone with foreign policy experience.
Woman #1: So you'd vote for Hillary Clinton.
Man #1: What's her foreign policy experience?
Transgender #1: Well, she is basically a hawk so she'll probably continue to keep us in a constant state of war and spend oodles of cash, but she knows how to not verbally offend foreign dignitaries, I think, since she was Secretary of State.

Gotta love the two party system! Vote for the candidate who will keep us in a perpetual state of war or vote for the candidate who may keep us in a perpetual state of war (but who knows?!?!) but will also probably f*ck up relations via Twitter. I mean, at least when Barack Obama was running for president he said he would keep us out of conflicts; Mrs. Clinton won't even do that. Sigh. I would probably vote for Clinton too, if she just tweaked a couple of things.

The alternative, of course, is the Donald, who can't even manage the basics of diplomacy within his own party. If we're talking purely foreign policy here, It's got to be Clinton (or Mrs. Clinton, if that's how you roll).

Trump is a showman with a remarkable gift for pissing people off. If the US's allies already think he's a moron, what can it mean for foreign policy rivals?

How is Mr. Trump (or the Donald, if that's how you roll) an alternative to Mrs. Clinton? From a foreign policy perspective, they seem to have the same points of view. This is an interesting year (not just foreign policy wise, but this is the subject of the thread). Gary Johnson is already polling around 10%, which are Ross Perot numbers (and Johnson is a big time hawk for a Libertarian). Bernie Sanders seems to be exerting significant influence on the DNC which is problematic if you're a hawk like Mrs. Clinton. Both major candidates have significant negatives from a polling perspective, which usually leads to "I'm not gonna vote" but maybe it will lead to "I'm gonna vote for someone else."

From a foreign perspective, it's gonna be Trump or Clinton, so even mentioning Gary Johnson is a weirdly outsiderish view.

I know you like the Libertarians, but let's be realistic. They ain't gonna get in.

The Donald's key points of foreign policy so far have been "ban Muslims", "Mexicans are rapists", and "Putin is awesome".

Can we at least agree that those aren't identical to Clinton?

We can agree that those statements are not statements Clinton would make. However, I don't think they are policy positions.

Yes, it's unrealistic that any third party candidate will win this election. I am excited because a third party candidate may win enough votes to get federal funding, which effectively puts it on a more level playing field with the Republicans and Democrats. I'm also sincerely hoping the Democrats split: Sanders Dems (e.g. actual Democrats) vs. Clinton Dems (e.g. pro-business, pro-war Democrats) and the Republicans spit: Trump Republicans (e.g. "We hate rich people and are racist" or national socialists) vs. Ryan Republicans (e.g. "We love rich people and aren't racist").

Hmm, we'll have to agree to disagree on whether Trump said he'd ban Muslims from entering the US. That's been a sticking point for many people abroad, and it's obviously been a policy he's advocated.

That said, I would also like to see a break from the two party system. I don't think it will happen along the lines you hope for, but we ain't gonna agree on everything, are we?

[william18]

I think Hilary Clinton is worse for middle eastern stability then Trump and let me explain why. First Clinton wants to place a no fly zone over syria, stepping on Russian Military toes. It's no secret Obama/Hillary both want to get rid of asad which is one of the few counties in the middle east that are democratically friendly with Russia. Obama is funding anti asad rebels. He's funding rebels, let me just rephrase. Many of them are actually ex-iraq military mercenaries, with a large portion defecting to isis who now have acquired wealth/funding from oil control.

Trump is actually agrees with the idea of letting Russia play out in Syria, he's against toppling Asad regime(for now), and I personally believe his talk about bombing "the hell out of isis" is more rhetoric than anything.

[Symmetry]

I think Hilary Clinton is worse for middle eastern stability then Trump and let me explain why. First Clinton wants to place a no fly zone over syria, stepping on Russian Military toes. It's no secret Obama/Hillary both want to get rid of asad which is one of the few counties in the middle east that are democratically friendly with Russia. Obama is funding anti asad rebels. He's funding rebels, let me just rephrase. Many of them are actually ex-iraq military mercenaries, with a large portion defecting to isis who now have acquired wealth/funding from oil control.

Trump is actually agrees with the idea of letting Russia play out in Syria, he's against toppling Asad regime(for now), and I personally believe his talk about bombing "the hell out of isis" is more rhetoric than anything.

So, let's get this straight. You think that Trump, the guy who openly talks about using nuclear weapons against ISIS, is actually for a stable Middle-East? It's certainly an interesting position you're taking with that line of thought.

I appreciate that you have to dismiss pretty much everything he's said as "rhetoric", but it's increasingly seeming like he really doesn't have a clue.

I don't think he has anything like a clear foreign policy, let alone a safe one

[william18]

I think Hilary Clinton is worse for middle eastern stability then Trump and let me explain why. First Clinton wants to place a no fly zone over syria, stepping on Russian Military toes. It's no secret Obama/Hillary both want to get rid of asad which is one of the few counties in the middle east that are democratically friendly with Russia. Obama is funding anti asad rebels. He's funding rebels, let me just rephrase. Many of them are actually ex-iraq military mercenaries, with a large portion defecting to isis who now have acquired wealth/funding from oil control.

Trump is actually agrees with the idea of letting Russia play out in Syria, he's against toppling Asad regime(for now), and I personally believe his talk about bombing "the hell out of isis" is more rhetoric than anything.

So, let's get this straight. You think that Trump, the guy who openly talks about using nuclear weapons against ISIS, is actually for a stable Middle-East? It's certainly an interesting position you're taking with that line of thought.

I appreciate that you have to dismiss pretty much everything he's said as "rhetoric", but it's increasingly seeming like he really doesn't have a clue.

I don't think he has anything like a clear foreign policy, let alone a safe one

Im sure powers such as Iran which is Shia, and Saudi Arabia where the royal family would rather retain their billions then concede to a caliphate will destroy isis. Talking about nuking isis is like talking about using antibiotics for a runny nose.

[Symmetry]

I think Hilary Clinton is worse for middle eastern stability then Trump and let me explain why. First Clinton wants to place a no fly zone over syria, stepping on Russian Military toes. It's no secret Obama/Hillary both want to get rid of asad which is one of the few counties in the middle east that are democratically friendly with Russia. Obama is funding anti asad rebels. He's funding rebels, let me just rephrase. Many of them are actually ex-iraq military mercenaries, with a large portion defecting to isis who now have acquired wealth/funding from oil control.

Trump is actually agrees with the idea of letting Russia play out in Syria, he's against toppling Asad regime(for now), and I personally believe his talk about bombing "the hell out of isis" is more rhetoric than anything.

So, let's get this straight. You think that Trump, the guy who openly talks about using nuclear weapons against ISIS, is actually for a stable Middle-East? It's certainly an interesting position you're taking with that line of thought.

I appreciate that you have to dismiss pretty much everything he's said as "rhetoric", but it's increasingly seeming like he really doesn't have a clue.

I don't think he has anything like a clear foreign policy, let alone a safe one

Im sure powers such as Iran which is Shia, and Saudi Arabia where the royal family would rather retain their billions then concede to a caliphate will destroy isis. Talking about nuking isis is like talking about using antibiotics for a runny nose.

You do know that Iran and Saudi are on different sides of the civil war, right? Saudi is Sunni. They oppose the Asad regime.

I see no benefit of going back to the dark days of the Bush presidency where an American leader had no clue over the difference.

[william18]

I think Hilary Clinton is worse for middle eastern stability then Trump and let me explain why. First Clinton wants to place a no fly zone over syria, stepping on Russian Military toes. It's no secret Obama/Hillary both want to get rid of asad which is one of the few counties in the middle east that are democratically friendly with Russia. Obama is funding anti asad rebels. He's funding rebels, let me just rephrase. Many of them are actually ex-iraq military mercenaries, with a large portion defecting to isis who now have acquired wealth/funding from oil control.

Trump is actually agrees with the idea of letting Russia play out in Syria, he's against toppling Asad regime(for now), and I personally believe his talk about bombing "the hell out of isis" is more rhetoric than anything.

So, let's get this straight. You think that Trump, the guy who openly talks about using nuclear weapons against ISIS, is actually for a stable Middle-East? It's certainly an interesting position you're taking with that line of thought.

I appreciate that you have to dismiss pretty much everything he's said as "rhetoric", but it's increasingly seeming like he really doesn't have a clue.

I don't think he has anything like a clear foreign policy, let alone a safe one

Im sure powers such as Iran which is Shia, and Saudi Arabia where the royal family would rather retain their billions then concede to a caliphate will destroy isis. Talking about nuking isis is like talking about using antibiotics for a runny nose.

You do know that Iran and Saudi are on different sides of the civil war, right? Saudi is Sunni. They oppose the Asad regime.

I see no benefit of going back to the dark days of the Bush presidency where an American leader had no clue over the difference.

Yeah they arent on friendly terms, but getting rid of isis is in their best interest. Realistically it'll be only Iran that deals with Isis, and thats what they are doing. Isis's days are numbered. The only thing left is the logistical plans for overtaking Falluja then Mosul. Atleast in Iraq.

[Symmetry]

I think Hilary Clinton is worse for middle eastern stability then Trump and let me explain why. First Clinton wants to place a no fly zone over syria, stepping on Russian Military toes. It's no secret Obama/Hillary both want to get rid of asad which is one of the few counties in the middle east that are democratically friendly with Russia. Obama is funding anti asad rebels. He's funding rebels, let me just rephrase. Many of them are actually ex-iraq military mercenaries, with a large portion defecting to isis who now have acquired wealth/funding from oil control.

Trump is actually agrees with the idea of letting Russia play out in Syria, he's against toppling Asad regime(for now), and I personally believe his talk about bombing "the hell out of isis" is more rhetoric than anything.

So, let's get this straight. You think that Trump, the guy who openly talks about using nuclear weapons against ISIS, is actually for a stable Middle-East? It's certainly an interesting position you're taking with that line of thought.

I appreciate that you have to dismiss pretty much everything he's said as "rhetoric", but it's increasingly seeming like he really doesn't have a clue.

I don't think he has anything like a clear foreign policy, let alone a safe one

Im sure powers such as Iran which is Shia, and Saudi Arabia where the royal family would rather retain their billions then concede to a caliphate will destroy isis. Talking about nuking isis is like talking about using antibiotics for a runny nose.

You do know that Iran and Saudi are on different sides of the civil war, right? Saudi is Sunni. They oppose the Asad regime.

I see no benefit of going back to the dark days of the Bush presidency where an American leader had no clue over the difference.

Yeah they arent on friendly terms, but getting rid of isis is in their best interest. Realistically it'll be only Iran that deals with Isis, and thats what they are doing. Isis's days are numbered. The only thing left is the logistical plans for overtaking Falluja then Mosul. Atleast in Iraq.

Not on friendly terms? The Saudi embassy was ransacked by Iran. Last I checked they weren't even on diplomatic terms.

The Iranians set the Saudi embassy on fire, for goodness sake.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35229385

You think they're getting along?

[william18]

I think Hilary Clinton is worse for middle eastern stability then Trump and let me explain why. First Clinton wants to place a no fly zone over syria, stepping on Russian Military toes. It's no secret Obama/Hillary both want to get rid of asad which is one of the few counties in the middle east that are democratically friendly with Russia. Obama is funding anti asad rebels. He's funding rebels, let me just rephrase. Many of them are actually ex-iraq military mercenaries, with a large portion defecting to isis who now have acquired wealth/funding from oil control.

Trump is actually agrees with the idea of letting Russia play out in Syria, he's against toppling Asad regime(for now), and I personally believe his talk about bombing "the hell out of isis" is more rhetoric than anything.

So, let's get this straight. You think that Trump, the guy who openly talks about using nuclear weapons against ISIS, is actually for a stable Middle-East? It's certainly an interesting position you're taking with that line of thought.

I appreciate that you have to dismiss pretty much everything he's said as "rhetoric", but it's increasingly seeming like he really doesn't have a clue.

I don't think he has anything like a clear foreign policy, let alone a safe one

Im sure powers such as Iran which is Shia, and Saudi Arabia where the royal family would rather retain their billions then concede to a caliphate will destroy isis. Talking about nuking isis is like talking about using antibiotics for a runny nose.

You do know that Iran and Saudi are on different sides of the civil war, right? Saudi is Sunni. They oppose the Asad regime.

I see no benefit of going back to the dark days of the Bush presidency where an American leader had no clue over the difference.

Yeah they arent on friendly terms, but getting rid of isis is in their best interest. Realistically it'll be only Iran that deals with Isis, and thats what they are doing. Isis's days are numbered. The only thing left is the logistical plans for overtaking Falluja then Mosul. Atleast in Iraq.

Not on friendly terms? The Saudi embassy was ransacked by Iran. Last I checked they weren't even on diplomatic terms.

The Iranians set the Saudi embassy on fire, for goodness sake.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35229385

You think they're getting along?

I think we are veering too far from the US presidential discussion, but I don't remember explicitly saying Iran and SA would coordinate militarily. I just said, if worst come to worst. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran will be fighting against ISIS.

[thegreekdog]

Hmm, we'll have to agree to disagree on whether Trump said he'd ban Muslims from entering the US. That's been a sticking point for many people abroad, and it's obviously been a policy he's advocated.

We don't disagree on what Trump said. My position is that banning all Muslims is not a realistic policy. In other words, it won't actually happen.

That said, I would also like to see a break from the two party system. I don't think it will happen along the lines you hope for, but we ain't gonna agree on everything, are we?

I understand that the two major parties wield a significant amount of financial and political power. I would love to read about how that happened (to be clear, I know why it continues to happen). It seems almost every other republic can figure out a way to accommodate many different parties. Even in 2016, some political pundits are saying things like "this is the end of the Republican party!" but indicating that the end of the Republican party means some Republicans will go to the Democrats and some will stay with the "new" Republican party. There is no room in the US for more than two parties and I do not see that changing without an established third party (Green Party, Socialist Party, Libertarian Party... i really don't care) getting enough votes to get federal funding. In fact, if any third party is running close to that number, I'll cast my vote that way.

[thegreekdog]

So, let's get this straight. You think that Trump, the guy who openly talks about using nuclear weapons against ISIS, is actually for a stable Middle-East? It's certainly an interesting position you're taking with that line of thought.

I appreciate that you have to dismiss pretty much everything he's said as "rhetoric", but it's increasingly seeming like he really doesn't have a clue.

I don't think he has anything like a clear foreign policy, let alone a safe one

See? That's exactly what I'm saying. Is Trump saying a lot of stupid and dangerous things? Yes. Do I think if Cthullu forbid he's elected president, Trump will actually implement (or even try to implement) any of those policies? Of course not.

So yes, he does not have a clear foreign policy. I assume, given his loose party affiliation and what he'e said, that he's on the hawk side of the Republicans, which is frankly just a little to the hawk side of Hillary Clinton. Again, the choice is: (1) a guy that has no clear foreign policy but will very likely be a hawk; or (2) a woman that has a clear foreign policy and will be a hawk. That's not a choice (except that you can say "I didn't vote for the guy who wants to kill terrorists' families and deport Muslims, but I voted for the woman who is going to bomb the Middle East indiscriminately." To me, that's basically the same thing from a policy perspective.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I expect Trump to deliver on his outlandish campaign promises about as much as I expected Obama to deliver on his (e.g. ending patriot act).

-TG

[DoomYoshi]

Trump wants to deal harshly with Snowden.
Clinton says he should come home and face the music (meaning a rigged trial).
Bernie says we should take into account that he exposed major criminal activity by the United States and that Espionage Act should be amended to deal with this.

#Snowden

[DoomYoshi]

These are some of the issues we talk about on this forum.

China

show

Russia

show

Next Up: Considering the Islamic State, Immigration "crisis" and Iran.

[DoomYoshi]

David Cameron has already come out against the man for his weird bigotry, and there's been talk about banning him from entering the country.

Cameron knows who butters Britain's bread. Since Trump locked up the nomination Cameron has suddenly become "very happy" to meet Trump. If he were to actually win the election I expect they'll send him Princess Eugenie as an inauguration sacrifice to ensure there are no hard feelings.

She's actually more of a nightrider:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2152984/Eugenie-charity-rider-sponsored-Mum-Fergie-gives-daughter-500-ahead-100km-event-spendthrift-Prince-Andrew-gives-mere-50.html

[DoomYoshi]

Trump is a showman with a remarkable gift for pissing people off. If the US's allies already think he's a moron, what can it mean for foreign policy rivals?

Not everyone wants war and rivalry.

Some of us want peace and cooperation. And some of us believe the key to peace and cooperation is an end to American belligerence toward Russia, recognition of an historic Russian sphere-of-influence over Europe, and an end to the U.S. enabling these disgusting micro-states like Poland, LIthuania, Ukraine, and Georgia. Whether deference in the face of the Kremlin is achieved through a new strategy of peace, or through utter and paralyzing incompetence by the White House doesn't really matter to me.

But you're undoubtedly right - for those people who want to see the U.S. succeed in adventures of world conquest, Clinton is definitely the best choice.

Tajikstan is a disgusting micro-state because it is Muslim. It's not surprising how Russia starts the first Caliphate in Europe for centuries.
#Putinwantsyouinahijab

[DoomYoshi]

From Meet the Press:

CHUCK TODD:

All right, I want to ask you a little bit about the platform and the Democratic party issues platform that's coming up. A couple of your appointees, when it comes to the issue of Israel, including Cornel West, he refers to the Palestinians as "the plight of an occupied people." Do you agree with his characterization?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS:

What I believe is that the United States is going to be playing on a level playing field in dealing with Israel and the Palestinian people. I am 100 percent pro Israel in the sense of Israel's right to exist, I lived in Israel, I have family in Israel, Israel has the right to live not only in peace and security, but to know that their very existence will be protected by the United States government.

On the other hand, I think if we're looking at lasting peace in the Middle East, the United States has got to respect the needs of the Palestinian people. They cannot be pushed aside. So that is my view. And, you know, other people can say whatever they want. That is my view.

CHUCK TODD:

What do you want the platform to say? Do you want to refer to the Palestinians as an occupied people? Do you want to say that Israel is occupying Gaza?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS:

Well, we're a little bit early about worrying about the wording of what the Democratic platform will be. We've got some good people on our platform-writing committee. But I think at the end of the day, there will be a general recognition by the entire Democratic convention, that of course Israel's right to exist in peace and security is not in debate.

But on the other hand, the Palestinian people's needs must also be respected. I have the feeling that while the media wants to make this into a great conflict, I think there's going to be broad consensus within the Democratic convention on that issue.

[mrswdk]

There’s too much - it’s like, it’s like take the New England Patriots and Tom Brady and have them play your high school football team. That’s the difference between China’s leaders and our leaders.

I lol'd.