Op-ediots

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22273
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Op-ediots

Post by Jennifer » 09 Aug 2018, 20:21

Warren wrote:
09 Aug 2018, 19:35
Jennifer wrote:
09 Aug 2018, 14:03
Warren wrote:
09 Aug 2018, 11:24
I see no chance that the Dems will nominate anyone whose administration won't be more damaging than the current one.
Uh-huh. Are you still of the opinion Hillary would've been even worse than the president we've got now?
We are not at war, so yes 10,000 times better.
I don't know if shit like our proxy war (via our freedom-loving friends the Saudis) in Yemen is much of an improvement, though.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12053
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Op-ediots

Post by Eric the .5b » 09 Aug 2018, 20:53

Jennifer wrote:
09 Aug 2018, 20:21
Warren wrote:
09 Aug 2018, 19:35
Jennifer wrote:
09 Aug 2018, 14:03
Warren wrote:
09 Aug 2018, 11:24
I see no chance that the Dems will nominate anyone whose administration won't be more damaging than the current one.
Uh-huh. Are you still of the opinion Hillary would've been even worse than the president we've got now?
We are not at war, so yes 10,000 times better.
I don't know if shit like our proxy war (via our freedom-loving friends the Saudis) in Yemen is much of an improvement, though.
And last I checked, we were still militarily involved in Afghanistan and dropping airstrikes all around the MidEast, including in Operation Inherent Resolve against ISIL. We haven't stopped being at war since very early this century.

Now, HRC may have opened up new theatres of war or escalated the WOT; she certainly talked tough. But she was also always pretty chickenshit. So 10K times worse is pretty fucking dubious.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22273
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Op-ediots

Post by Jennifer » 09 Aug 2018, 20:58

Eric the .5b wrote:
09 Aug 2018, 20:53
Jennifer wrote:
09 Aug 2018, 20:21
Warren wrote:
09 Aug 2018, 19:35
Jennifer wrote:
09 Aug 2018, 14:03
Warren wrote:
09 Aug 2018, 11:24
I see no chance that the Dems will nominate anyone whose administration won't be more damaging than the current one.
Uh-huh. Are you still of the opinion Hillary would've been even worse than the president we've got now?
We are not at war, so yes 10,000 times better.
I don't know if shit like our proxy war (via our freedom-loving friends the Saudis) in Yemen is much of an improvement, though.
And last I checked, we were still militarily involved in Afghanistan and dropping airstrikes all around the MidEast, including in Operation Inherent Resolve against ISIL. We haven't stopped being at war since very early this century.

Now, HRC may have opened up new theatres of war or escalated the WOT; she certainly talked tough. But she was also always pretty chickenshit. So 10K times worse is pretty fucking dubious.
Plus, whatever bad things HIllary might have done, I'm pretty confident she would not have opened kiddie concentration camps or palled around with white supremacists and neo-Nazis.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 25938
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Op-ediots

Post by thoreau » 09 Aug 2018, 21:11

Support for the war in Yemen started as an Obama policy. Trump continues it. Clinton would have as well, though maybe she would have done some vaguely tough talk about human rights during some photo op, before making sure that the government continues to support the Saudis without doing much to remind the American people of it.

I think the reality is that US troops will be in Afghanistan for a very long time to come. No President wants to be the one to take the heat for "surrendering", or however the other party would spin it. By early 2020 there will be soldiers in Afghanistan who were born after 9/11. In 2021 there will be soldiers who joined up on 9/11 out of a sense of patriotic duty, did a 20-year stint, and are now retired on pensions and watching as the war continues.

Trump hasn't really pushed any of these ongoing conflicts much farther than Clinton would have, but he also hasn't done much better than she would have in those matters. He's more of the same on a day-to-day basis.

The problems with him and military involvement overseas are:

1) If things go from same-old-same-old to OH SHIT, he lacks the intelligence and negotiating ability to prevent things from getting worse. The government will only get through those things if whatever competent people he's still keeping around are able to talk him into letting them do their jobs. But his choice of Bolton as National Security Advisor is not reassuring.

2) He ditched the Iran deal, which will do nothing to encourage anyone to consider the US a good faith negotiator. Clinton would have kept the Iran nuclear deal in place. Maybe she would have talked tough at some point, if a poll showed that some swing state voter thought she was too much of an anti-American lefty (and I know Wisconsin voters who think that), but she would have kept the deal in place.

OTOH, to her discredit, Clinton supported removing Qaddafi after he gave up nukes. If the Republicans had the slightest sense about them they would have hammered her for THAT, not for Benghazi. But they don't have it in them to criticize somebody for fighting too much, only too little. At least Trump wouldn't have removed an egocentric despot with terrible taste in clothes and decor.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 22714
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Op-ediots

Post by Mo » 10 Aug 2018, 03:28

By this definition we weren’t at war under Obama.

Also, Trump has backed Saudi aggression against Qatar.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 25938
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Op-ediots

Post by thoreau » 10 Aug 2018, 10:57

Mo wrote:By this definition we weren’t at war under Obama.

Also, Trump has backed Saudi aggression against Qatar.
While probably being unaware of the large US military base in Qatar.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dead_elvis and 6 guests