The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[Farid]

I'm a big picture kind of guy. The loss of life and livelyhood to gun violence and rape in the United States do not come close when compared with the loss of life and livelyhood that occurs when a state is dismantled. I'm not just talking about the deaths in wars such as those in Iraq. I'm talking about the generations of people who will grow up without a state to protect them. That's much much worse than people not being able to have abortions or get married to the person they love for 4 to 8 years. Not to mention you have to add the loss of Iraqi life to gun violence and rape, which would have been much lower had the war not occurred.

That's also what leads to people supporting wicked and evil states such as what is going on with ISIS. The people gravitate towards stability, even if stability comes in the form of something demonic.

And I don't mean to say this means I would choose Trump versus Clinton. I will never be forced to vote for somebody who is everything I detest.

 

[howie105]

Have you ever watched a kid run in circles and scream that its right? That's why discussions on the net are usually so pointless all you have to do is keep running and screaming and you never lose. The trick is to avoid the kids aisle and never talk to anyone below five years of age.

 

[His_Highness]

@cybrguy - The kind of war we're talking about here does affect what goes on within our country's borders and it's every bit as important as the policies that are strictly internal to our borders.
- These wars cause our young men and women to be sent to other countries where they are being killed or being sent home physically and mentally damaged. These young people represent the future of what goes on 'inside our country'.
- These wars are a drain on our country's finances. There are better 'internal' uses of those finances. How about spending it on things like single payer health care?

I could go on with other examples of how these 'external to our borders' events directly affect what goes on internally and in a big way .... but the two examples I've already mentioned are enough to make the point. We no longer exist in a vacuum and haven't for quite some time.

@Farid - I think you're aiming at your usual target here - Hillary being hawkish when it comes to invading other countries and how other politicians, that shall remain nameless , do not support that hawkish stance now and didn't before. But...I would be remiss if I didn't point out that if a country harbors our enemies willingly or unwillingly and/or will not work with us in the mutual destruction of those enemies .... I'd hope you'd stand behind whichever American politician does what's needed even if that includes something as horrific as droning on about drones or even worse, boots on the ground.

I'm against war and killing but if you're looking for someone to turn the other cheek .... look elsewhere.

 

[cybrguy]

@cybrguy - The kind of war we're talking about here does affect what goes on within our country's borders and it's every bit as important as the policies that are strictly internal to our borders.

Of course it does, and I haven't and wouldn't suggest that it doesn't. My point to Farid is that the President's job is about 20% international and 80% domestic. That doesn't in any way diminish the importance OR the impact of the international portion. It just emphasizes that he is called President OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for a reason. His primary responsibility is to America and to Americans and the VAST majority of what he does and should do is here, in America.

 

[lwien]

What we do inside our country's borders is just as important, no more important, than what we do outside them.

What we do both inside and outside are so intertwined that it would be damn near impossible to define which one is more important for they are totally dependent on one another, both positively and negatively.

The people gravitate towards stability, even if stability comes in the form of something demonic.

Yup, yup, yup. Totally agree.

Sidebar: When I was in the Air Force back in '64, I was stationed at a small base in Peshawar, Pakistan but our mission had nothing to do with Pakistan, but rather, both the Soviet Union and China. Think NSA and ya get the picture.

Anyway, things were a LOT different back then in Pakistan. What's astonishing was that most of us had Top Secret Cryptographic Clearances that was a prerequisite to do our jobs but yet, we were free to roam around Pakistan at will. There was no sense of danger whatsoever.

As a matter of fact, when I had a two week leave, a buddy of mine and myself hitchhiked to Kabul, Afghanistan with a stop in the Khyber Pass to pick up a bit of hash. One of our rides was in the back of a farmers truck who was delivering his goods to market. Another was with a Major in the Pakistani Army who invited us to his place for breakfast. On the way to Kabul, we stopped by a a village that was comprised of nothing but mud huts and the Chief of that village invited us to stay for the evening. What a great experience. As an invited guest, I can't begin to tell you of the friendly hospitality that we experienced.

When we got to Kabul, we stayed in this bed and breakfast that was owned by a very old English ex-general in the British Army and his wife. He had this HUGE handlebar mustache. The place was kinda high up in the hills and I remember waking up one morning and walking out in the patio that overlooked Kabul but we couldn't see the city 'cause we were just above the clouds as the sun was rising through them. The top of the clouds was level with the patio. It almost seemed like we could just walk off the patio onto that carpet of clouds. Amazing. That was the best cup of coffee that I have ever had in my life.

Anyway, the reason that I am painting this picture is to demonstrate how different things were back then. Looking at how things are now in that part of the world, I'm always asking myself...........What in the fuck happened????

 

[howie105]

Of course it does, and I haven't and wouldn't suggest that it doesn't. My point to Farid is that the President's job is about 20% international and 80% domestic. That doesn't in any way diminish the importance OR the impact of the international portion. It just emphasizes that he is called President OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for a reason. His primary responsibility is to America and to Americans and the VAST majority of what he does and should do is here, in America.

So where did you get these 80/20 figures you keep repeating? I would really like to know who keeps track of such things.

 

[Farid]

@lwein You visited when Pakistan was at it's best. The losses Pakistan suffered in the 1971 effectively shattered the image of Pakistani military superiority, and the country stagnated significantly. Then the 80's happened, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, and we have the Pakistan we see today. That's a story for another thread though.

I think that it's pointless droning Taliban, just as it was pointless to kill Vietcong with no end in sight. Going after groups like Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is a viable goal, but waging war on the Taliban, the dominant governing force in the region is not a long term strategy. Americans might see the Taliban as awful, but history has proven that waging a ground war in Afghanistan is not a good strategy. Droning is no strategy either, as you need boots on the ground communicating with locals and winning hearts and minds. Droning regular insurgents just helps the Taliban's image IMO. Droning high value Al Qaeda targets on the other hand is a legitimate strategy.

But with groups like ISIS, which are effectively holding the population of a sovereign state hostage, there is a duty to intervene. We had a duty to free Europe from the grasp of Hitler's fascist rule, just as we had a duty to rid the Pacific of the Imperial Japanese. We also have a duty to help the state of Iraq battle ISIS.

My view pretty much mirrors Sanders', who voted to authorize military action in Afghanistan, despite his uncertainties about how the war would turn out. I think he would also authorize special forces missions to take out high value ISIS targets.

Unlike Clinton he would not authorize US forces to engage with the Syrian Army, potentially triggering conflict with Russia.

I don't think droning extremists in Afghanistan and Yemen, while supporting extremists in Syria and Libya is a legitimate foreign policy, and so I will not be voting for Clinton.

 

[lwien]

Droning is no strategy either, as you need boots on the ground communicating with locals and winning hearts and minds.

The whole "winning hearts and minds" thing has me a bit perplexed being that the dominate concept has and always will be that of........"what have you done for me lately", and that will ALWAYS be in flux.

 

[howie105]

I think if one really wanted to find another approach aside from a military solution there would be some sort of obvious diplomatic discussions going on outside of the theater, like we have seen in the past. Don't get me wrong if there is a viable enough reason to engage another country in war then we should do it and get out. Sadly fifteen years of destabilizing a region in a undeclared war just seems like the "forever war" scenario playing out to me.

 

[His_Highness]

I'm not advocating violence. You don't have to win a fight if you don't get into one.

There are countries that cannot or will not deal with the threats to America that exist within their own borders. I'm not advocating violence by America because a group 'says' they are going to do something to America. I'm advocating retaliation when a group outside American borders goes beyond the 'say'.

I think it would be unconscionable for America to cross borders to take matters into our own hands IF the other country wants the opportunity to handle things themselves ..... or would like us to assist under their command. I would hope American diplomacy would begin with that request to deal with the issue and to offer our assistance. If that request falls on deaf ears then and only then would I advocate for America to take matters into our own hands.

If there is another solution in these cases other than sitting on our hands when attacked I'm all for it.

Edit: Just to be clear....if the retaliation can be done via drone, intelligence agencies, etc. versus thousands of boots on the ground that would be preferable. No need to kill a mosquito with a elephant gun or get into nation building.

 

[CarolKing]

Now Trump is parroting all the bad stuff Bernie has said about Hillary. I understand a heated debate during a presidential election but will we ever learn what goes around comes around.

He would say all kinds of crap regardless I guess.

 

[lwien]

Now Trump is parroting all the bad stuff Bernie has said about Hillary. I understand a heated debate during a presidential election but will we ever learn what goes around comes around.

He would say all kinds of crap regardless I guess.

If it'll make ya feel any better, just think of all the Trump sound-bites that she has at her disposal when she runs against him.

 

[howie105]

Now Trump is parroting all the bad stuff Bernie has said about Hillary. I understand a heated debate during a presidential election but will we ever learn what goes around comes around.

He would say all kinds of crap regardless I guess.

Maybe the question is, could a candidate on her left and a candidate on her right be onto something?..... See, that is one of the problems with the current campaign presentations model, they tend to be rhetoric driven. Once a complaint is introduced anyone can repeat the chant and those who agreed the first time around are more likely to agree the second time around. The best voter approach is to ignore the rhetoric and think critically.

 

[Maitri]

My point to Farid is that the President's job is about 20% international and 80% domestic.

Huh. I am curious: Is that in any given moment, on any given day, during any given term/presidency, during the history of the United States, or some other timeframe? I ask because it seems to me that the President's job is to respond appropriately to the truth of the present moment. I suspect that given the circumstance, that could look like 100/0%, 0/100%, or virtually anything in between.

Oh and BTW, I would LOVE to see the data upon which you based your statistics. Maybe in SPSS or Excel format?

 

[howie105]

I'm not advocating violence. You don't have to win a fight if you don't get into one.

There are countries that cannot or will not deal with the threats to America that exist within their own borders. I'm not advocating violence by America because a group 'says' they are going to do something to America. I'm advocating retaliation when a group outside American borders goes beyond the 'say'.

I think it would be unconscionable for America to cross borders to take matters into our own hands IF the other country wants the opportunity to handle things themselves ..... or would like us to assist under their command. I would hope American diplomacy would begin with that request to deal with the issue and to offer our assistance. If that request falls on deaf ears then and only then would I advocate for America to take matters into our own hands.

If there is another solution in these cases other than sitting on our hands when attacked I'm all for it.

Edit: Just to be clear....if the retaliation can be done via drone, intelligence agencies, etc. versus thousands of boots on the ground that would be preferable. No need to kill a mosquito with a elephant gun or get into nation building.

I believe we are in agreement on many points but we disagree on some of the approach. The undeclared "War On Terror" just keeps going on and spreading which produces more terrorists in more locations. Its a cyclic problem that Washington hasn’t come to grips with in fifteen years and given the lead contenders in both parties statements the dominant approach is "stay the course".

 

[lwien]

I believe we are in agreement on many points but we disagree on some of the approach. The undeclared "War On Terror" just keeps going on and spreading which produces more terrorists in more locations. Its a cyclic problem that Washington hasn’t come to grips with in fifteen years and given the lead contenders in both parties statements the dominant approach is "stay the course".

And the alternate solution is......???

 

[Farid]

And the alternate solution is......???

Targeting terrorist groups around the world, but not getting bogged down in Afghanistan where no country has ever emerged victorious.

The Taliban is an awfully backwards governing force, but they are not the ones who attacked us on 9/11. That was Al Qaeda, which found a safe haven in Afghanistan under the administration of the Taliban. If the United States wants to defeat Al Qaeda we need to attempt to break the relationship between Al Qaeda and the Taliban versus trying to just kill them all, which does not work out in the long run.

I think the only countries with close enough ties to Afghanistan to actually be able to influence things on the ground are Pakistan, and Iran, both of which have their own interests in the region. The best plan which was proposed to deal with the Taliban was proposed by Iranian moderates who suggested holding democratic elections instead of propping up Hamid Karzai. Propping up Karzai just empowered the Taliban, who claimed the US was trying to impede democracy by appointing their own yes man.

 

[lwien]

Targeting terrorist groups around the world....

But isn't that just a never-ending game of whack-a-mole?

 

[howie105]

And the alternate solution is......???

After due consultation an official declaration of war with all the oversight and commitment that decoration requires. Afterward the nation can bury the dead and move on.

 

[cybrguy]

Huh. I am curious: Is that in any given moment, on any given day, during any given term/presidency, during the history of the United States, or some other timeframe? I ask because it seems to me that the President's job is to respond appropriately to the truth of the present moment. I suspect that given the circumstance, that could look like 100/0%, 0/100%, or virtually anything in between.

Oh and BTW, I would LOVE to see the data upon which you based your statistics. Maybe in SPSS or Excel format?

Sorry, no data. It is an estimate based on 50 years of watching American politics and observing and living under 10 different Presidents.

Why, do you have data that shows I am way off? I would think that it is pretty obvious that what we expect and need from the President changes based on what is happening in the country, but that doesn't keep one from estimating what the Presidents time is generally taken by, and my estimate is about 80% domestic. What's yours?

 

[Farid]

But isn't that just a never-ending game of whack-a-mole?

It's better than playing into the terrorists desires by attacking civilian areas and giving the terrorists propaganda to spread.

Drones are terrible at waging conventional war against insurgent groups like the Taliban, but they are very effective at targeting individual high value targets like Al Qaeda and ISIS leaders.

 

[lwien]

After due consultation an official declaration of war with all the oversight and commitment that decoration requires. Afterward the nation can bury the dead and move on.

But we're not fighting a nation. We're fighting a global ideology.

Maybe we should start another thread, eh? This is a bit off topic.

 

[Farid]

But we're not fighting a nation. We're fighting a global ideology.

Maybe we should start another thread, eh? This is a bit off topic.

That would be true if talking about Al Qaeda, but the Taliban is effectively the governing force of Afghanistan, and as such we need to treat them as a nation. Not for the sake of morals or ethics, but for the sake of not getting involved in a war which has no end in sight.

 

[howie105]

But we're not fighting a nation. We're fighting a global ideology.

Maybe we should start another thread, eh? This is a bit off topic.

Ideologies do not pull triggers.

Sorry, no data. It is an estimate based on 50 years of watching American politics and observing and living under 10 different Presidents.

Why, do you have data that shows I am way off? I would think that it is pretty obvious that what we expect and need from the President changes based on what is happening in the country, but that doesn't keep one from estimating what the Presidents time is generally taken by, and my estimate is about 80% domestic. What's yours?

Because you have stated your opinion as fact and you can't support it. Which means the rest of you position based on the unsupported opinion is suspect too. Your falling back to you can't prove me wrong doesn’t address peoples problem of you presenting your opinion as fact, surly you can see that.

Mod note: posts merged

 

[lwien]

Ideologies do not pull triggers.

But they are a catalyst for triggers being pulled.

My response was to your quote of "After due consultation an official declaration of war with all the oversight and commitment that decoration requires. Afterward the nation can bury the dead and move on."

And my point was that we are not fighting a nation but a global ideology so I don't see how your recommendation as stated above could possibly work in our fight against terrorism.