Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

But here is my real question. How often is the word ‘charismatic’ ever applied to a woman? It’s not unusual for a woman to dominate a room, make her presence felt and draw people who will want to impress her. Men like that are charismatic. Women are alluring, sultry, attractive, sexy but are they ever called ‘charismatic’? Because of the way we understand and apply the concept, is it even possible for a woman candidate to be charismatic?

---

The most obvious example of charismatic women occurs in the performing arts. I can still recall the frisson of excitement and wonder I felt at a performance of Strauss's opera Elektra with Birgit Nilsson in the title role, ditto Gwyneth Jones as Brunnhilde in a Ring cycle, Elizabeth Schwarzkopf in recital, Reri Grist as Oscar in Un Ballo in Maschera, and a few others. I am sure it must work like that with the best performers in rock and pop, in the sense that you go fired up for a great performance and get one, and that person commands the stage from the moment they walk on. In politics, and like her or not, Margaret Thatcher had a sort of charisma, even her opponents like me became addicted to her as if it were an exquisite punishment. There are others, such as Aung San Suu Kyi in the days when she was a political prisoner, maybe Eva Peron. There are charismatic women in politics if you look for them. Perhaps we want women to be more lovable or likable when they enter public office in a way we do not expect of men?

Here's a thought, possibly a wild one as I don't know most of the Republicans on the Hill -with more and more Republicans preferring to endorse Mrs Clinton than Donald Trump, could she -if she is elected President- begin a healing process in Congress that restores a more bi-partisan decision-making process to break gridlock and petty filibustering and delaying tactics used against a Democrat President? Or will it just be 'business as usual' if the composition of Congress does not change? So much depends on the relationship a President forges with Congress, and in spite of her unpopularity in the wider country, could Hillary Clinton actually be the one person to bring both sides of Congress closer together?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Here's a thought, possibly a wild one as I don't know most of the Republicans on the Hill -with more and more Republicans preferring to endorse Mrs Clinton than Donald Trump, could she -if she is elected President- begin a healing process in Congress that restores a more bi-partisan decision-making process to break gridlock and petty filibustering and delaying tactics used against a Democrat President? Or will it just be 'business as usual' if the composition of Congress does not change? So much depends on the relationship a President forges with Congress, and in spite of her unpopularity in the wider country, could Hillary Clinton actually be the one person to bring both sides of Congress closer together?

---

Some of that also depends on her, but I hope so. The more Trump opens his mouth, the more she looks like the adult in the room. The more backing she gets from Republicans and right leaning independents, the more she can discard the diehard Sander voters.Then when election time comes and goes she can go back to the slightly left of center moderate I believe her to be.
I think Trump burned himself recently. The idiot actually got some voters who were just going to vote for Gary Johnson (I think he's polling at about 9% now) to turn around and vote for Clinton instead- to try to make absolutely sure that she will win, just in case it gets too close.

Unlike American voters, American Politicians always vote to their own best interests. The Republicans who are running from Trump started with the ones in states that were going to have tough local elections, but now you might see guys figuring out that tying their political futures to a Champion with the social maturity of a thirteen year old might come back to bite them.
Also, the Koch Bros and their buddies didn't trust Trump from Day One.
Maybe it's because they knew he couldn't win, or maybe they figure playing ball with Hillary might be a new kind of Enlightenment.
I'm going to predict Blake Shelton running for President in 2024, promising wholesome country values, after a disturbing sex tape of Hillary Clinton blowing a roomful of Wall St Strongmen is leaked.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

Some of that also depends on her, but I hope so. The more Trump opens his mouth, the more she looks like the adult in the room. The more backing she gets from Republicans and right leaning independents, the more she can discard the diehard Sander voters.Then when election time comes and goes she can go back to the slightly left of center moderate I believe her to be.
I think Trump burned himself recently. The idiot actually got some voters who were just going to vote for Gary Johnson (I think he's polling at about 9% now) to turn around and vote for Clinton instead- to try to make absolutely sure that she will win, just in case it gets too close.

---

Thanks Fred as this is along the line I was thinking. Obama did not serve enough time in the Senate to develop bi-partisan relations with Republicans, but also fell foul of the split in the GOP which saw the Neo-Cons lose out to the TEA Party in Senate and House for whom even Neo-Cons became 'Republican In Name Only'. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton has been around long enough in the Senate and beltway politics to have both cordial relations with -some- Republicans while not being too far apart with them on policy issues. The question that cannot be answered is how the evident split in the GOP will shape up after November, for while we must assume there will be some pragmatic Republicans, some TEA Party radicals, and some Neo-Cons it remains to be seen if Trump will have brought a new kind of 'street-wise' politician into Congress. It is not just Trump refusing to endorse Paul Ryan but his failure to respond negatively to someone in the crowd at one of his rallies who, on hearing Ryan's name shouted 'Throw him over the wall' -quite radical given that Ryan would become President if Obama and Biden were suddenly not there. If this introduces a fourth column in the Republican Party in Congress, maybe we should take a cue from the split in the PLO in 1974 over those who were willing to opt for a 'two-state solution' with Israel, and those who rejected it, and thus became known as the Rejection Front. After all, whatever it is Trump argues, he seems to be against it -he rejects the polls because they are rigged; he rejects the Media because they are biased against him; he rejects the law when it doesn't resolve disputes to his advantage, and he has all but rejected the General Election result if he doesn't win because that too is rigged.

could Hillary Clinton actually be the one person to bring both sides of Congress closer together?

I'm going to say NO in the sense you're asking, Republicans despise Hillary and the ground she walks on.
In the sense that she may regain more political POWER in the House and Senate, then yeah, less gridlock, and yes, Hillary is a Machine Candidate, and a Hawk, in that sense ...She IS a Republican!
Lots of these House of Representative Members are just businessmen guys from like Oklahoma who own a big Car Dealership and have the bucks to run for office. Some others actually come to Washington with fresh bold ideas on how to change things in Washington, then they get here and the guys in the SUITS put their arm around them and walk them into the back room and EXPLAIN to them "how we do things here"
The first Black President ran things like a White College Professor, not like a "BLACK MAN" is characterized.
The first Woman President will run things like a scarred barroom brawler with balls to the floor, not like a "LADY" is characterized.
There is no Republican Leader, that's why Trump wasn't quashed from Day One.
Current events say the change at Fox News might bring light to American Politics, because they own THE EAR of a huge bloc of Republican voters. I hope after the election Bill-o retires, and you start to see the Monica Crowleys and Sean Hannitys dissapear into conservative radio, I have a dream!!
But in my opinion, the only good thing Trump will do about gridlock is blame the Republican Party for his loss, and storm back to the penthouse at Trump Tower for a relaxing massage and Melania blow-job. Never to be seen again in American Politics.
And leaving already disillusioned Republican voters even more disillusioned. Or is it more illusioned, how the hell do I know????? The bigger the picture gets the harder it is to analize.

This is a fantastic time for Democrats, gays, trannys, and guys scouring the face of the earth for smut.
That's good enough for me.
Guys like Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders have hinted about the scary tunnel vision Hillary has in her contempt and hatred for the Republican Party.
That's good enough for me!!!

https://s32.postimg.org/sce6llvl1/Tr...ug_12_2015.pngfree picture upload

She really is going to win this time, no mistakes....https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=...1629cf.jpg&f=1
....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX0X0tx0TOU

Quote:

---

The seargent will for his seargent's pay
Obey the captain 'til his dying day
The captain will for his captain's pay
Obey the general order of battle play
The generals bow to the government
Obey the charge you must not relent

---

Of course this isn't true in many places. The current government in Turkey just survived a coup, the last government in Thailand did not. One of the strength of our democracy is that the general do indeed bow to the government - of, by and for the people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Of course this isn't true in many places. The current government in Turkey just survived a coup, the last government in Thailand did not. One of the strength of our democracy is that the general do indeed bow to the government - of, by and for the people.

---

So if President Trump loses his temper with Iran and tells his General to 'nuke Tehran' the Four Star guy will do just that, produce the codes and the key and 'boom!'---?

I believe the oath that a serviceman takes is to uphold the constitution, not their personal conscience, desires or greed. I do believe this is a strength rather than a weakness. Should a President attempt to short-circuit the procedures recommended therein, one would hope the Generals find a way to thwart his/her effort.

However, the US doesn't always adhere to it's own laws, or at least Presidents and Legislators have found subtle ways to interpret it to their own advantage. The Constitutions grants only to Congress the right to declare war. So ever since Korea the US partakes in police actions rather than war. One would think launching a swarm of missiles armed with nuclear warheads would be the ultimate declaration of war, yet this right apparently has been ceded to President who's ever present aide carries with him the nuclear 'football'.

It's a sad world that has produced a sufficient number of nuclear warheads to destroy itself ten times over, and the US has been the leader in the race to nuclear oblivion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

I believe the oath that a serviceman takes is to uphold the constitution, not their personal conscience, desires or greed. I do believe this is a strength rather than a weakness. Should a President attempt to short-circuit the procedures recommended therein, one would hope the Generals find a way to thwart his/her effort.

However, the US doesn't always adhere to it's own laws, or at least Presidents and Legislators have found subtle ways to interpret it to their own advantage. The Constitutions grants only to Congress the right to declare war. So ever since Korea the US partakes in police actions rather than war. One would think launching a swarm of missiles armed with nuclear warheads would be the ultimate declaration of war, yet this right apparently has been ceded to President who's ever present aide carries with him the nuclear 'football'.

It's a sad world that has produced a sufficient number of nuclear warheads to destroy itself ten times over, and the US has been the leader in the race to nuclear oblivion.

---

A confused and confusing post, but one that needs clarification on issues of US law on which I cannot make a proper judgement. That said I don't think 'police actions' is the right word to describe the use of force not sanctioned by Congress, given that

According to a 1995 article in the American Journal of International Law, "Presidents and their advisers point to more than two hundred incidents in which Presidents have used force abroad without first obtaining congressional approval."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...of-war/279246/

I am still not sure what would happen if, for example, Iran attacked and sank a US military vessel in the Gulf and President Trump decided to 'nuke Tehran' in retaliation, if there is any basis in law or military procedure to stop a General from carrying out the order. As I think I read somewhere recently, there is no formal procedure to short-circuit that Presidential order.

Something to read here - http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/milit...yingorders.htm

Then after a few 'nukes' there will not be any courts around to pass judgement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

So if President Trump loses his temper with Iran and tells his General to 'nuke Tehran' the Four Star guy will do just that, produce the codes and the key and 'boom!'---?

---

Not quite that simple, but...

well, a hell of a lot simpler than most of us probably think or have thought. Just Wiki it. Apparently the Secretary of Defense has to verify it...then there are targeting options....but
Look, just Wiki it and then read why Trump is a bad idea to be in charge of this. It's pretty good:
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/3/12367996...-nuclear-codes

here's a snippet:
"The other reason for concern is his character.
After the Watergate scandal broke, and President Nixon became increasingly embattled politically, he turned to drink as a source of comfort. This freaked out Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, who worried that an erratic, drunk Nixon might order a nuclear launch out of pique. Schlesinger told aides in the Pentagon war room to check with him if Nixon started talking to them about launching nukes.
Thankfully, Nixon didn’t do it. But the worry with Trump is similar: His character is so erratic that he might order a nuclear launch just because he’s mad at someone."



(BTW, the link in the snippet leads to another interesting opinion article)

If you read the electoral college numbers Hillary has this election won. Trump is not winning Virginia and his insults towards the Governor of Ohio doomed that battleground state.

Getting to 270 is an impossibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zerrrr

If you read the electoral college numbers Hillary has this election won. Trump is not winning Virginia and his insults towards the Governor of Ohio doomed that battleground state.

Getting to 270 is an impossibility.

---

True or not I think the link article from my previous post makes an excellent read:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...-policy-213955

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

Not quite that simple, but...

well, a hell of a lot simpler than most of us probably think or have thought. Just Wiki it. Apparently the Secretary of Defense has to verify it...

---

Your link in the latter post actually makes it clear -that Schlesinger was concerned at Nixon's reliance on alcohol clouding his judgement did not remove the illegality of questioning the President's decision, had he made it:

As with his predecessors, Trump’s power over the life and death of entire nations would be practically unbounded. Today, the nuclear deluge he could command would consist of thousands of weapons, each 10 or 20 times more deadly than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima...

There are no restraints that can prevent a willful president from unleashing this hell...

If he gave the command, his executing commanders would have no legal or procedural grounds to defy it no matter how inappropriate it might seem. ... It must be obeyed as long as it is constitutional—i.e., the president as commander in chief believes he or she is acting to protect and defend the nation against an actual or imminent attack.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...-policy-213955

I actually think these apocalyptic scenarios though scary beg the question -would the US actually be threatened by a nuclear attack? In reality I doubt it but as the articles linked above suggest, an accidental trigger warning made by human and/or computer error is conceivable and has for years been cited as the most likely scenario for nuclear apocalypse, made worse if there is such a breakdown of trust and or communication between the sides that even a direct call to verify the action by the other side would not be possible.

There is, however, a different and more complicated scenario, and that would involve using 'tactical' or 'battlefield nuclear weapons' of the kind that carry a small payload but can 'take out a target' with ruthless efficiency. On the one hand, the decision to use such weapons would have to come from the Commander-in-Chief and be his (or her) ultimate decision, but on the other hand it would be part of military strategy to deliver a 'conclusive' strike to end an intractable situation, a last ditch action when all other means had failed but some action needed to be taken. Humiliation is one such situation that might play the Trump tune, as he believes in the kind of 'decisive leadership' that he claims Obama does not have which Putin does, and is not the kind of man who would not respond if humiliated.
To be entirely hypothetical, if there were an attack on the USA in the USA on the 9/11 scale organised as well as claimed by Daesh, I can imagine Trump reasoning that only one response is now necessary, to 'nuke' either Mosul or Raqqa, or both, on the military grounds that both cities would be 'taken out' but that the wider nuclear fall-out would not be severe or as severe as it was in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Job done. Daesh blown to smithereens.
The main problem with this is that once one state uses tactical nuclear weapons in this way, it would establish a precedent other nuclear states might also use, setting aside any legal challenges -but it is also a situation different from the crisis management of an incoming nuclear strike but adds emotion to a 'reasonable' military choice. And Trump might argue with his Generals that other nuclear states would see this is as 'one-off' and not the 'normalisation' of nuclear deployment on the battlefield.
And happily, this is all speculation..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

]
The main problem with this is that once one state uses tactical nuclear weapons in this way, it would establish a precedent other nuclear states might also use, setting aside any legal challenges -but it is also a situation different from the crisis management of an incoming nuclear strike but adds emotion to a 'reasonable' military choice. And Trump might argue with his Generals that other nuclear states would see this is as 'one-off' and not the 'normalisation' of nuclear deployment on the battlefield.
And happily, this is all speculation..

---

I think people have a tendency to forget that we actually have tactical nuclear weapons (smaller scale strategic nuclear weapons). I wonder if that was what Trump was musing about when he questioned having nuclear weapons and not using them. But again, as you mentioned in the quote - no one really wants to set the precedent....or take the chance of escalating a battle beyond all control.

I read in the Guardian that

Nearly 15,000 emails recovered by the FBI from the private server used by Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state are set to be made public just before the presidential election in November, it emerged in court on Monday.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...e-election-day

I am puzzled by this release of emails because I can't think of another example of a senior politician in the USA having their correspondence made public while they are still either in office or running for office -the closest I can think of is the release of Richard Nixon's White House tapes, but that took place after he resigned. What I find even more puzzling is that first of all, if there were any classified documents they will obviously not be in the batch released to the public, and those that are released will turn out to be of little or no interest if the larger cache released earlier this year is anything to go by. Those who have been demanding the release on the assumption the emails will contain sensational correspondence that will 'sink' the Clinton campaign should be locked in a room at 9am and ordered to read them. My guess is that by 10 am they will be banging on the door and screaming to be let out. Boredom does that to the politically ambitious.

Originally he was "with Hillary" and the plan was to sabotage the Party. Soften the opposition for her.That was the Plan. Now.;...
HE"S GONE ROGUE!!!
That CRAZY BASTARD!

The breaking news all over tv and the front pages for the last few hours has focused on the FBI opening a new investigation into the private email server Hillary Clinton used when she was Secretary of State. But it appears to be focused on email exchanges between Mrs Clinton's adviser Huma Abedin and her husband Anthony Weiner, with no evidence any email from or to Mrs Clinton is 'in the frame'. I have no idea what this is about, other than what we have been told and the speculation is that it might hurt Mrs Clinton one percentage point as most voters, it is assumed, have either already voted or made up their mind.

In a typical roar of whimsy, Trump said 'This is bigger than Watergate' several times, as if even he couldn't quite believe it. One wonders if Trump has any real idea what happened between the break-in at the Watergate building in 1972 and the resignation of President Nixon two years later. Or maybe if he wins the vote, his Secretary of State will be more important than the President?

No one knows what to make of the re-opening of the FBI probe, if that's even the proper characterization. The issue is Huma's laptop which she used to communicate with her deranged husband. Tony is likely to be arrested sometime soon for sexting an underage girl as his 4-year old son layed beside him in bed.
But back to the laptop...The device might contain classified State Dept emails who's origins are part of the infamous Hillary private server loop.

So we got a real life pervert with pictures of his junk on the same computer as government secrets. Ian Fleming couldn't have written anything better.
But Trump is wrong about this being bigger than Watergate. Doubtful it's a game changer. Just a plot to a great movie

shifty bitch. quintessential politician, appears nice but like a fucking harpie or a scorpion.

The scorpion is Jame Comey. The shifty, whining bitch is Donald Trump. But, yeah Hillary will rain down on America's enemies like a fuckin' harpie. I'm definitely with her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holzz

shifty bitch. quintessential politician, appears nice but like a fucking harpie or a scorpion.

---

MY BITCH HILLARY!!!
Oh Yeah!!
Hey, holzz, what is transsexual, .... 12 years old, ....and will live to over a hundred??
Hillary's next five Supreme Court Justices!!
ha ha ha!!
I don't blame the republicans for being scared shitless of Hillary, Hillary is TOMMORROW,
the GOP is yesterday.
Redneck is the new nigger.

You guys are totally missing the point.

Huma Abedin is fine as hell and her husband is a freak of the highest magnitude.

Dude has to have some butt assed nekkid pics of her on his computer.

I am calling for a thorough examination of that laptop!

Just don't examine mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

The scorpion is Jame Comey. The shifty, whining bitch is Donald Trump. But, yeah Hillary will rain down on America's enemies like a fuckin' harpie. I'm definitely with her.

---

Just don't be surprised if what happens is not what you expect.

To be serious for one brief moment, behind all the weirdness you actually assimilate there are cans and cans of worms you can't even imagine.
If Comey hauls Hillary off to jail AFTER the election, and he's got the goods, so be it.
Tim Kaine would in my opinion be unable to become President on his own,
but I think if you put him in the chair and gave him the power,
he'd surprise everyone.

The media is making a bigger deal out of this than it really is in real life. Weiner is the target of a child porn sting and in the course of the investigation they found something on communal equipment which means that the FBI has to reopen the investigation in order to properly do their jobs.

If a transgender woman was murdered and the case deemed closed and new information came to light the investigation would be reopened because of the new information. That is how the system is supposed to work.

Since Clinton has locked up the election the media needs a story to get through the final week so they create this bombshell investigation to make it look like the election is tightening so people actually go out to the polls.

Will this change anyone's mind? No. The public is sick and tired of the crap the media has thrown out regarding the election. Everyone is suffering from election fatigue.

Quote:

---

Since Clinton has locked up the election the media needs a story to get through the final week so they create this bombshell investigation to make it look like the election is tightening so people actually go out to the polls.

---

That one was tinfoil-worthy. :screwy

A couple of things. I cannot think of the mechanics by which many different media companies could control the fbi director. Or that outside of partisanship, they care what voter turnout is and their stories are geared towards ensuring maximum voter turnout. How does that profit them? Actually, who cares what their motives are...let's say you have them all figured out, in what manner could they accomplish what you said they did?

Second thing is, the question is not whether the fbi should investigate (they already are investigating Weiner) but whether the director was allowed to make a statement about a very preliminary stage of an investigation (when people do not have enough information to evaluate culpability) under the Hatch act.

I would say the elephant in the room is that the core republican voter is a wounded animal right now, and has been for over eight years.
Beneath all the crazy cheering at Trump Rallies, you can almost feel the crazy fear and uncertainty.
They are in total fight/flight hysteria.
For them this isn't the future of the USA, it's about the future of their own FAMILY.
While most of the readers here see a tranny orgy as a GOOD thing, Republican Mothers only know those big city bright lights done blinded and stole their little boy.

This is why in this last week you're seeing Clinton ads using Trump's own words against women. Gotta get Trump tweeting about wimmen agin!
Trump is wrong on everything. Policywize. It's a goddam shame that still means nothing to Republicans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

A couple of things. I cannot think of the mechanics by which many different media companies could control the fbi director. Or that outside of partisanship, they care what voter turnout is and their stories are geared towards ensuring maximum voter turnout. How does that profit them? Actually, who cares what their motives are...let's say you have them all figured out, in what manner could they accomplish what you said they did?

---

Pretty easy. You already know of Thiel's shitposting PAC but did you know Hillary has one as well?

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...htmlstory.html

When Sanders supporters called for recounts the Internet screamed that the election was being stolen. Trump does it and everyone calls him crazy.

When polls come out showing Hillary with leads of 8+ points the pro-Trump polls and anti-Hillary stories start just like the past week.

The media learned after the 2000 election that elections can be very profitable. I remember during the primaries when Cruz was positioned as an establishment candidate when in reality he is a Tea Party guy. So the media plays the line of 'Cruz meets with Republican establishment leaders in Washington. Let's now go to a Trump rally where 10,000 people are waiting for him to speak.'

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...inton-campaign

Speaking at a Morgan Stanley investors’ conference in March, one of the commanders of the FIC, Leslie Moonves, the chief executive of CBS and a man whose 2015 compensation totaled $56.8m, had this to say about the Trump campaign. “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS. The money’s rolling in and this is fun … this [is] going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It’s a terrible thing to say. But bring it on, Donald. Keep going.”

Pretty easy! And all that was proof that the media forced the FBI director to say he was reopening the email investigation? This is why I asked what evidence you had that Comey was acting at the behest of any news organization.

People profit from situations all the time without causing them....this seems to be a theme in conspiracy thinking. Adherents think if someone profits from a situation, he must have brought it about. Sometimes it's true sometimes it's not. For instance, when a plane goes missing, CNN's ratings might go up. Would you seriously consider this evidence that CNN disappeared the plane?

I won't even get into the claim that Trump was merely asking for a recount of closely contested jurisdictions....he was accusing the system of being rigged before a single ballot had been cast.

I just heard on CNN that there is a leaked FBI report that white males named Donald Trump have been being murdered since last Friday.
They're not sure whether to warn the public, or to substantiate stories of a suspicious looking cyborg leaving the scene,...or just not comment on the whole thing.

The FBI director is just doing his job. He has a job to do regardless of the political calendar. The media will spin it multiple ways.

When Hillary wins she is going to have a hard time uniting the country and repairing our destroyed foreign policy.

For all of the crying over China building military bases in the Pacific our friends are now moving closer to China due to the rhetoric displayed in this election. Malaysia has joined the Philippines in moving closer to China. That effectively shuts our door in SE Asia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zerrrr

The FBI director is just doing his job. He has a job to do regardless of the political calendar. The media will spin it multiple ways.

When Hillary wins she is going to have a hard time uniting the country and repairing our destroyed foreign policy.
For all of the crying over China building military bases in the Pacific our friends are now moving closer to China due to the rhetoric displayed in this election. Malaysia has joined the Philippines in moving closer to China. That effectively shuts our door in SE Asia.

---

The FBI director is just doing his job. He has a job to do regardless of the political calendar. The media will spin it multiple ways.
--The view of Harry Reid that the FBI has violated the Hatch Act calls this into question.

--I think the US has been divided for a very long time, how one describes the divisions is not easy as they are regional, ethnic, religious, etc -aspects of the US embedded since the first settlers arrived. I think the most serious cleavage might relate to differing views on how much power the Federal government has and should have, because this also relates to 'states rights' and the claim that 'Washington DC' is out of touch with ordinary citizens, a claim that was made by Nixon when he was running for the White House in 1968.

As for foreign policy, is it destroyed?
A major loss of confidence took place as a consequence of regime change in Iraq, most notably within the USA itself. The fact that the US and the UK bombed the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan in 2001-2002 was lauded at the time, yet the Taliban continue to be a major player in Afghan and Pakistan politics, and the Middle East has not benefited from the assumption made by the Bush Presidency that regime change in Iraq would become part of a trend toward democratisation in the region. But if the policy was flawed from the start, and I think it was, it was inevitable that good intentions would lead to bad results, and people as well as Presidencies don't like bad results.
The so-called resolution to the conflict in Iraq endorsed a Shi'a dominated government led by Nouri al-Maliki that reneged on a key element of the agreement with the Bush Presidency and deliberately shut out Sunni Arabs from government and the army. It happened because the US was desperate to find a way out of Iraq, yet Trump blames Obama and Mrs Clinton for the resulting mess. This is an example of how a Republican strategy failed on the battlefield and in diplomacy, yet the Democrats have shown a different way of dealing with foreign policy issues.

Consider the differences-even with the bombing of Serbia the Clinton Presidency was able to bring the parties to the Yugoslav conflict to Ohio -including the Serbs- to negotiate a peace that ended that war, and Milosovic was later sent for trial to The Hague. The Clinton Presidency through the work of George Mitchell was instrumental in bringing together the conflicting parties in Northern Ireland to conclude the Good Friday Peace Agreement, and Clinton came in at a later stage to bring Israel and the PLO to sign a peace treaty in 1993.

The evidence suggests that the US can use military force, but that when supported with equally aggressive diplomacy it can secure a result that lasts; or that diplomacy used to its full advantage can produce results without military engagement.

Although Mrs Clinton is portrayed as being more prone to military action than Barack Obama, the Obama Presidency in effect, heard what the US public was saying and that it did not want to see its service personnel sacrificed overseas in unwinnable wars. And while Trump might describe the negotiations with Iran as 'the worst deal in history' or whatever meaningless words he used, how else is Iran to be brought back into the world of diplomacy when all the military analysts have said a military conflict would not be desirable or achieve its objectives? And was the agreement with Iran so bad? Only Trump and some extremists think so, but they have had Iran on their target list for their own reasons for a long time.

As for the Philippines and Malaysia, they are looking at how they can extract the best deal from China and so far it is all about money, such as the agreement between China and the Philippines to allow more fishermen into Scarborough Shoal. The longer term questions for all in the region are -Can the Chinese be trusted not to expand their military presence in the Pacific but with what ambitions? And, related to that, can the Chinese be trusted partners over the long term, compared to the US?

As for the US, it retains a strong military presence with security guarantees in both Japan and South Korea and the Philippines needs to ask if the US really needs it, rather than the other way round.

Dollars to donuts says all this hoopla is just some Weiner weiner pics sent to Huma at work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

The FBI director is just doing his job. He has a job to do regardless of the political calendar. The media will spin it multiple ways.
--The view of Harry Reid that the FBI has violated the Hatch Act calls this into question.

--I think the US has been divided for a very long time, how one describes the divisions is not easy as they are regional, ethnic, religious, etc -aspects of the US embedded since the first settlers arrived. I think the most serious cleavage might relate to differing views on how much power the Federal government has and should have, because this also relates to 'states rights' and the claim that 'Washington DC' is out of touch with ordinary citizens, a claim that was made by Nixon when he was running for the White House in 1968.

As for foreign policy, is it destroyed?
A major loss of confidence took place as a consequence of regime change in Iraq, most notably within the USA itself. The fact that the US and the UK bombed the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan in 2001-2002 was lauded at the time, yet the Taliban continue to be a major player in Afghan and Pakistan politics, and the Middle East has not benefited from the assumption made by the Bush Presidency that regime change in Iraq would become part of a trend toward democratisation in the region. But if the policy was flawed from the start, and I think it was, it was inevitable that good intentions would lead to bad results, and people as well as Presidencies don't like bad results.
The so-called resolution to the conflict in Iraq endorsed a Shi'a dominated government led by Nouri al-Maliki that reneged on a key element of the agreement with the Bush Presidency and deliberately shut out Sunni Arabs from government and the army. It happened because the US was desperate to find a way out of Iraq, yet Trump blames Obama and Mrs Clinton for the resulting mess. This is an example of how a Republican strategy failed on the battlefield and in diplomacy, yet the Democrats have shown a different way of dealing with foreign policy issues.

Consider the differences-even with the bombing of Serbia the Clinton Presidency was able to bring the parties to the Yugoslav conflict to Ohio -including the Serbs- to negotiate a peace that ended that war, and Milosovic was later sent for trial to The Hague. The Clinton Presidency through the work of George Mitchell was instrumental in bringing together the conflicting parties in Northern Ireland to conclude the Good Friday Peace Agreement, and Clinton came in at a later stage to bring Israel and the PLO to sign a peace treaty in 1993.

The evidence suggests that the US can use military force, but that when supported with equally aggressive diplomacy it can secure a result that lasts; or that diplomacy used to its full advantage can produce results without military engagement.

Although Mrs Clinton is portrayed as being more prone to military action than Barack Obama, the Obama Presidency in effect, heard what the US public was saying and that it did not want to see its service personnel sacrificed overseas in unwinnable wars. And while Trump might describe the negotiations with Iran as 'the worst deal in history' or whatever meaningless words he used, how else is Iran to be brought back into the world of diplomacy when all the military analysts have said a military conflict would not be desirable or achieve its objectives? And was the agreement with Iran so bad? Only Trump and some extremists think so, but they have had Iran on their target list for their own reasons for a long time.

As for the Philippines and Malaysia, they are looking at how they can extract the best deal from China and so far it is all about money, such as the agreement between China and the Philippines to allow more fishermen into Scarborough Shoal. The longer term questions for all in the region are -Can the Chinese be trusted not to expand their military presence in the Pacific but with what ambitions? And, related to that, can the Chinese be trusted partners over the long term, compared to the US?

As for the US, it retains a strong military presence with security guarantees in both Japan and South Korea and the Philippines needs to ask if the US really needs it, rather than the other way round.

---

Quoting Harry Reid is like quoting a con man. One of the most corrupt and disliked Democrats in the Senate by his own party.

In terms of Iraq, a complete failure. The government is laughably weak and long-term our military is looking to move closer to Iran than Saudi Arabia since the young Saudi's are more radical in nature. Your quoting Bush but ignoring Obama's eight years of failure in the region.

Remember the change in governments across North Africa that was supposed to bring in a wave of democracy and peace? How has that worked? It hasn't except to create more chaos. Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Libya are still in conflict.

The diplomacy of the last eight years has not worked. Neither has the diplomacy of Bush when he went into Iraq.

In terms of Asia, they are moving closer to China because they look at the election rhetoric with disdain and realize their future is with the Chinese who are not talking about war and starting conflicts around the world.

Can you trust the US? Asia does not think so. Americans think they can but that is an American line of thinking being pressed onto Asia rather than looking at it from an Asian point of view. They see the Americans as warlike wanting conflicts around the world. That is the problem with America; we think in terms of ourselves and how others should see us rather than emphasizing with the other countries.

If you think just electing Hillary is going to solve our foreign policy problems you are mistaken. There is a lot of work to be done to repair damage caused by more than a decade of failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zerrrr

Neither has the diplomacy of Bush when he went into Iraq.

---

Please tell me you don't think Bush going into Iraq was diplomacy by any definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Please tell me you don't think Bush going into Iraq was diplomacy by any definition.

---

The Republicans thought it was at the time. Every step since then has just dipped us further into the quagmire of Middle Eastern politics that includes the last eight years.