POTUS Election thread

[Greyblades]

She has a lot of experience, but it doesnt help her as much as you'd think because it has been largely bad experience, benghazi, lybia, syria, screwups of the highest order dotting a generally lacklustre performance.

Trump is unproven but Clinton is proven bad.

[Fragony]

I am watching it with closily, I of course can't look into the American psyche but I wonder what will happen once a 'winner' becomes the underdog. Hillary is absolutily cold and ruthless, a well-oiled machine, and Trump is not the smartest man ever who says stupid things when he shouldn't.

As for me, Hillary frightens me. If I had kids I would rather have Trump watching over them if I have to go somewhere. I am pretty sure they will be just as terrified of her as I am, but will have a blast with Trump.

[Hooahguy]

She has a lot of experience, but it doesnt help her as much as you'd think because it has been largely bad experience, benghazi, lybia, syria, screwups of the highest order dotting a generally lacklustre performance.

Trump is unproven but Clinton is proven bad.

Eh, shes done a lot of good too. And it doesnt help that the US public is tired to death of hearing about failures like Benghazi. And Trump has been proven bad. Remind me again how his casinos are doing?

[Kralizec]

Video records dont become automatically false because of the person presenting it.

Dodges through incredulity, ridicule and outright denial in the face of video testimony of lawbreaking, this squirming is depressing to witness.

Personally, I vastly prefer a written article to a video. Even without taking account of the quality, or the person who made it. You can chalk that up to lazyness if you want. I just don't want to waste 15 minutes of my life, for some information that would take less than 5 minutes to read, and from a dubious source to boot.

The only bit I got from your video (I fast forwarded to about halfway through and watched a couple of minutes) that he accuses Clinton of violating campaign finance rules (i.e. giving directions to people paid by a supposedly independent PAC) . If true, that's serious.

You could do me a favour and summarize the charges made in that video...afterall, you were the one who was trying to make some sort of point with that video...I assume.

[Sarmatian]

that he accuses Clinton of violating campaign finance rules

Everybody does that.

The only beef I've got with Clinton is that she's promising tougher stance towards Russia, and with Putin on the other end, that may prove very serious. She wants to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria. Since ISIS doesn't have an air force, it's pretty clear whose planes she wants grounded. Granted, it may be just tough talk, as actually implementing a no-fly zone iz pretty much impossible, but she has a track record of supporting military solutions.

We (as in all of us who live on this planet) need some one who can defuse the situation, not add oil to a fire.

[Hooahguy]

The only beef I've got with Clinton is that she's promising tougher stance towards Russia, and with Putin on the other end, that may prove very serious. She wants to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria. Since ISIS doesn't have an air force, it's pretty clear whose planes she wants grounded. Granted, it may be just tough talk, as actually implementing a no-fly zone iz pretty much impossible, but she has a track record of supporting military solutions.

We (as in all of us who live on this planet) need some one who can defuse the situation, not add oil to a fire.

To be fair, I think shes doing that in large part because of two reasons: 1) She oversaw the "reset" with Russia which clearly failed with what happened with Crimea and Eastern Ukraine so she probably thinks that softer talk hasnt worked. And 2) She sees how Trump is soft on Putin so she is going hard at this to potentially sway Reagan-era Conservatives who really hate Russia.

I kinda think her talk about a no-fly zone in Syria is just talk, as its impossible now to implement without Russian consent. Which she wont get. This might have been possible in 2012 or 13, but now its impossible. I think she understands this but it makes for good tough talk especially when the other side is soft on the issue.

[Pannonian]

Video records dont become automatically false because of the person presenting it.

Dodges through incredulity, ridicule and outright denial in the face of video testimony of lawbreaking, this squirming is depressing to witness.

Have you watched The Wilderness Years yet? Now that is acknowledged by experts on the subject to be one of the great political documentaries, with research and sources that stand the scrutiny of trained historians and politicians across the whole political spectrum. Including testimony from all the main players who were still alive. This was your response.

Not a good sign when you need videos to make your point.

Do you know what hypocrisy means?

[Greyblades]

Do you know what the difference between using a documentary to tell a point you are too stupid to articulate yourself and using a video's footage of secret recordings as proof of another criminal act by hillary clinton?

You keep bringing that up again and again like it's some masterful putdown but in reality it's just proof of your complete lack of originality and adaptation plus an insufficient ability to distinguish between proper usage of visual aids and over reliance of other people's work.

Personally, I vastly prefer a written article to a video. Even without taking account of the quality, or the person who made it. You can chalk that up to lazyness if you want. I just don't want to waste 15 minutes of my life, for some information that would take less than 5 minutes to read, and from a dubious source to boot.

The only bit I got from your video (I fast forwarded to about halfway through and watched a couple of minutes) that he accuses Clinton of violating campaign finance rules (i.e. giving directions to people paid by a supposedly independent PAC) . If true, that's serious.

You could do me a favour and summarize the charges made in that video...afterall, you were the one who was trying to make some sort of point with that video...I assume.

Too lazy to even read the description apparantly.

Part III of the undercover Project Veritas Action investigation dives further into the back room dealings of Democratic politics. It exposes prohibited communications between Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the DNC and the non-profit organization Americans United for Change. And, it’s all disguised as a duck.

In this video, several Project Veritas Action undercover journalists catch Democracy Partners founder directly implicating Hillary Clinton in FEC violations. “In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground,” says Creamer in one of several exchanges. “So, by God, we would get ducks on the ground.” It is made clear that high-level DNC operative Creamer realized that this direct coordination between Democracy Partners and the campaign would be damning when he said: “Don’t repeat that to anybody.”

The first video explained the dark secrets and the hidden connections and organizations the Clinton campaign uses to incite violence at Trump rallies. The second video exposed a diabolical step-by-step voter fraud strategy discussed by top Democratic operatives and showed one key operative admitting that the Democrats have been rigging elections for fifty years. This latest video takes this investigation even further.

Eh, shes done a lot of good too. And it doesnt help that the US public is tired to death of hearing about failures like Benghazi. And Trump has been proven bad. Remind me again how his casinos are doing?

Allowing an ambassador to be killed inspite of plentiful prior warning, being stupid enough to let classified documents be exchanged on an unsecured email server and turning Syria and Lybia from functioning states into warzones to noone's benefit but the USA's enemies, combined all tip the scales of competence extremely against her. Remind me, did those casinos get anyone killed or ruin him?

[Hooahguy]

D
Allowing an ambassador to be killed inspite of plentiful prior warning, being stupid enough to let classified documents be exchanged on an unsecured email server and turning Syria and Lybia from functioning states into warzones to noone's benefit but the USA's enemies tip the scales of competence extremely against her. Remind me, did those casinos get anyone killed or ruin him?

Remind me again how many investigations on Benghazi have been done and remind me again what the resulting conclusions were? The ambassador chose to go to Benghazi despite the risks, his travel is at his discretion. Benghazi has been talked about so many times everyone is sick of it. Investigations have brought no charges against Clinton and now most people think its synonymous with a witch hunt. Which it probably is to be honest.

I agree with you on the emails. Really bad move and shows bad judgement. But I overlook them because of how bad Trump is. That should tell you something.

As for Libya and Syria, Id place that one more on Obama. You see, the Sec of State does not make foreign policy decisions. POTUS does. Sec of State can advocate policy but ultimately it is up to the president. The principle failure of Libya was the lack of a real follow up to build a stable government. But nobody wanted another Iraq debacle so thats why there wasnt much of a follow up. Syria was a similar situation but hardly Clinton's fault its such a mess. Its funny you mention both nations as cases against her so it seems like damned if you do, damned if you dont? Unless you advocated massed boots on the ground like in Iraq to maintain stability?

Well might havent gotten anyone killed (not that we know of anyways) but many lost their jobs. But he doesnt seem concerned about that, as he was rooting for the financial crisis in which millions lost their jobs. So it didnt ruin him. Just the people who worked for him.

[Husar]

You keep bringing that up again and again like it's some masterful putdown but in reality it's just proof of your complete lack of originality and adaptation plus an insufficient ability to distinguish between proper usage of visual aids and over reliance of other people's work.

Says the guy who keeps parroting Sargon of Akkad...

[Pannonian]

Do you know what the difference between using a documentary to tell a point you are too stupid to articulate yourself and using a video's footage of secret recordings as proof of another criminal act by hillary clinton?

You keep bringing that up again and again like it's some masterful putdown but in reality it's just proof of your complete lack of originality and adaptation plus an insufficient ability to distinguish between proper usage of visual aids and over reliance of other people's work.

Of course I rely on other people's work to articulate what the Labour Party was up to. That's because they are primary sources, the best kind of sources from a historian's POV. And what's more, they're the primary actors in the subject, again the best kind of sources from a historian's POV. Are you familiar with Polybius's discussion of meta-history?

[Montmorency]

Putin keeps bringing up that the US public doesn't agree with US aggression, so how are you so sure that Russian public perception will affect its strategic interests in any way?

I don't follow your logic here. Putin's statement is exactly a reflection of Russian public sentiment and the internal efforts to keep it floated at a particular level. At any rate, I was talking about the more difficult manipulation, that of changing the fundamentals of aggression calculation. As a matter of fact, what is taken for aggression is anything that is constructed as a response to Russian bloc-building in its periphery, so by existing standards there is no way for America to appear unaggressive to Russia other than by completely ignoring both it and Eastern Europe in its actions, and even then the proliferation of conspiracy thinking among the Russian people that transcends even Arab-level paranoia (it even transcends America's homegrown paranoiacs!) leaves inaction just as good a circumstance for animosity to fester. All this is why probably most policy wonks would prefer giving Russia a 'time-out' from the international system, even though mechanically it's un-achievable, and I don't believe it has proven to have an effect in other scenarios over the years.

[Pannonian]

Well might havent gotten anyone killed (not that we know of anyways) but many lost their jobs. But he doesnt seem concerned about that, as he was rooting for the financial crisis in which millions lost their jobs. So it didnt ruin him. Just the people who worked for him.

That sounds just like the kind of politician that Greyblades would support. Over here in the UK, the shadow chancellor whom GB supports was gleeful at the prospect of economic turndown and high unemployment, as it represents an opportunity for the kind of revolutionary politics that normal Britain would never accept.

[Montmorency]

It would be one thing to demerit Obama and Clinton for allowing Syria, Iran, and Russia to mutually strengthen each other at the expense of Obama('s efforts to isolate them from one another), but to blame either for the existence of al-Assad or of ISIS is delusional. It's so stupid you might as well blame Putin or Khamanei for it.

[Fragony]

Trump must have crafty hands, Hillary is all wetworks, according to wikileaks at least

[Husar]

Trump must have crafty hands, Hillary is all wetworks, according to wikileaks at least

If you like your conspiracy theories, how about this one:

Is it a coincidence that a guy who was/is accused of rape now seems to support the misogynist candidate?

Something to think about for the freethinkers?!?

Or maybe not?!?

Or is it?!?

[Fragony]

Of course Hillary would never have someone assasinated, who believes that when a ruthless icecold bitch is running for the white-house of cards

[Gilrandir]

One should assume that Putin acts rationally, like Husar I think it's better to improve relationships. If we act rationally and improve our relationship with the Kremlin we will all be better of. First step, stop surrounding them the west seems to be almost begging for escalation

He would see it as a sign of the West's weakness and will push on. Same as he has been doing for 2.5 years and the West has been doing nothing but expressing grave concerns and trying to reasom with him.

Public perception in Russia is not going to be manipulated, and certainly not by the west.

It is being constantly manipulated, but certainly not by the West.

[Fragony]

He would see it as a sign of the West's weakness and will push on. Same as he has been doing for 2.5 years and the West has been doing nothing but expressing grave concerns and trying to reasom with him.

I really can't judge who's provocating who. Ukraine government certainly is no saint the reaction to us possibly not signing the treaty is very intimidating

As I wrote that tbe Dutch parlement is being blackmailed over getting radar-images of the M17, huh thought they didn't have them

[Gilrandir]

I really can't judge who's provocating who. Ukraine government certainly is no saint the reaction to us possibly not signing the treaty is very intimidating

As I wrote that tbe Dutch parlement is being blackmailed over getting radar-images of the M17, huh thought they didn't have them

This is ridiculous. Ukraine is is no position to blackmail or intimidate anyone.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

... a ruthless icecold bitch is running for the white-house....

This is the part of her leadership skill set I respect.

I hate her policy set and her lack of ethics.

The other stuff is "faked moon landing" level theory.

[Kralizec]

in reality it's just proof of your complete lack of originality and adaptation plus an insufficient ability to distinguish between proper usage of visual aids and over reliance of other people's work.

[Pannonian]

GB probably thinks a montage of RTW images is a decisive historical argument, whereas citing Polybius's analysis of the causes of war is over reliance on other people's work.

[Fragony]

As the POTUS campaign grows increasingly grim, this made me laugh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzjR...aily202&wpmm=1

[AE Bravo]

I don't follow your logic here. Putin's statement is exactly a reflection of Russian public sentiment and the internal efforts to keep it floated at a particular level. At any rate, I was talking about the more difficult manipulation, that of changing the fundamentals of aggression calculation. As a matter of fact, what is taken for aggression is anything that is constructed as a response to Russian bloc-building in its periphery, so by existing standards there is no way for America to appear unaggressive to Russia other than by completely ignoring both it and Eastern Europe in its actions, and even then the proliferation of conspiracy thinking among the Russian people that transcends even Arab-level paranoia (it even transcends America's homegrown paranoiacs!) leaves inaction just as good a circumstance for animosity to fester. All this is why probably most policy wonks would prefer giving Russia a 'time-out' from the international system, even though mechanically it's un-achievable, and I don't believe it has proven to have an effect in other scenarios over the years.

It's more that there needs to be actual deescalation so the animosity can shift its attention somewhere else. Demonizing Russian leadership plays a big role in that country's threat perception, and is considered an affront to the nation. Even if inaction leaves room for animosity to fester, exasperating conflict with the demonization makes the animosity worse anyway. There's no significant change if people feel they're not getting their fair place in the negotiating table because they will just go ahead and egg on the person who portrays them strongly in a counternarrative. "Fundamentals of aggression calculation" can be changed with conflict resolution or deescalation.

There are at least a handful of examples of two states not seeing each other the same way, while one sees a threat the other side would not at all. It can be achieved and makes it more likely for a shift in the political narrative, including the paranoid side.

[Montmorency]

In concrete terms, what would "actual de-escalation" look like? The US fundamentally cannot back down on the contestation of the Crimea annexation, so it's clearly not a matter of simply dropping sanctions. There has to be some other transaction for that to happen, but we've been going through those motions for 2 years and the US is continually getting burned. There are only so many times we can go through the cycle of John Kerry proclaiming imminent reconciliation before bitterly writing off Russia as a country, followed by Obama calling Russia "a regional power" and then turning around with "world partner". It's not credible to advise the US state department to just turn the other cheek, unless you believe that Putin has already accomplished all his goals and there is no better option to ease the pain for America.

[Fragony]

Could be worse, you could have something like the EU wanting to recognise all borders of a deeply devided country in the disguise of a trade-treaty.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

In concrete terms, what would "actual de-escalation" look like? The US fundamentally cannot back down on the contestation of the Crimea annexation, so it's clearly not a matter of simply dropping sanctions. There has to be some other transaction for that to happen, but we've been going through those motions for 2 years and the US is continually getting burned. There are only so many times we can go through the cycle of John Kerry proclaiming imminent reconciliation before bitterly writing off Russia as a country, followed by Obama calling Russia "a regional power" and then turning around with "world partner". It's not credible to advise the US state department to just turn the other cheek, unless you believe that Putin has already accomplished all his goals and there is no better option to ease the pain for America.

Putin's goal set is not complete. However, he is something of an opportunist -- he is not likely to foment another Crimea episode anytime soon....unless the opportunity is too ripe for too little risk to refuse.

[Montmorency]

It's an interesting thing. Economically, Russia has much less scope than America to 'play the long game', and yet due to the nature of leadership differences between the two countries, Russia is in a better position to play a political long game with a consistent policy set and stance. I just think Putin has this over any possible American administration, so even a more-or-less hawkish approach can only limit damage done by Russia to US interests and backed institutions - there's no decisive check opportunity.

Maybe another strategy would be to lose the American predictability and try to match Putin for wildcard bluffs. Probably just cartoonish, though. Would only work in a Japanese comic.


At this point maybe everyone (in the security establishment) just wishes it were 1999 again.

[Hooahguy]

So the race has tightened significantly in the past week or so. It seems like its a tossup now compared to the definite Clinton win two weeks ago. Really interested to see how this ends up. Clinton camp must be freaking out over the Comey stuff. Funny how it works, back in July or whenever when the FBI said that they wouldnt press charges or whatever all the liberals were like "hooray FBI" and the conservatives hated the FBI. Now its flipped. Same with wikileaks, back with the Manning leaks the conservatives wanted Assange's head on a spike, and now they love him for the DNC leaks. We live in a strange world.