Debate 10/15/19

[Shodan]

@QuickSilver

@SlackerInc

Speaking of troop levels, several foreign policy type media figures are saying Warren made a major gaffe in declaring that she wants to move all troops out of the Middle East. Thoughts?

It’s a nice sentiment. Every politician says it. Not every politician intends to precipitate a crisis by actually following through on it. It takes a very special idiot of low cunning to actually do it (as evidence shows). Warren doesn’t strike me as one of those.

I don’t suppose anyone, neither the other Dem candidates nor the media, is going to ask “Does that include Syria?”

None of the Dems can say it - they need the Syria issue to bash Trump. The media isn’t going to say it, for the same reason. Nobody can address it, for fear of highlighting [list=A][li]When they say “I will pull the troops out” they don’t mean it, and [*]if they say “I won’t pull the troops out if it will precipitate a crisis” it means “I won’t pull the troops out” .[/list]I realize that debates are about sound bites, but they shouldn’t be. [/li]
“What would you have done about Turkey if you were President?” seems to me to be a good question for a prospective President. Because it doesn’t lend itself to sound bites, and isn’t a gotcha.

Air strikes (against a NATO ally)? Leave the troops in place and issue a stern warning not to hurt them, even by accident? Give the Kurds anti-aircraft missiles? Evacuate the area? Economic sanctions? Negotiations?

So far, the Democratic debate seems to have centered on health care, tax the rich, global warming, and Trump is bad. A President is going to have to deal with foreign policy too.

If Warren has a better idea, let’s hear it. If she is going to do the same things except it will be better because she’s not Trump, that doesn’t help anything. Likewise if she dodges the question.

Obviously foreign policy is not her strong suit. Nor for Sanders. Biden has something resembling foreign policy experience, based on being Obama’s VP. But if the topic of Syria comes up, someone from Fox News or the Trump campaign is going to ask if Biden will claim a red line that nobody can cross without serious consequences.

It’s a pity that asking politicians hard questions is considered unfair (for Democrats).

Regards,
Shodan

[bobot]

@Shodan

… A President is going to have to deal with foreign policy too.

…

This has been proven to not be the case. Perhaps in the old days, but it’s a brave new, stupid country.

[Shodan]

@bobot

This has been proven to not be the case. Perhaps in the old days, but it’s a brave new, stupid country.

I disagree that, if Warren or Sanders or Biden or Buttigieg are elected President, they will not have to deal with foreign policy.

Based on Warren’s statement, she will deal with the Middle East either the same way as Trump, except maybe not even though she says so, or a different way that she hasn’t mentioned. If she is going to be different than Trump, how? If she is going to be the same, then avoiding questions on foreign policy makes sense for her campaign.

‘I don’t need to deal with Syria, because Trump’ does not strike me as a worthwhile strategy. YMMV.

Regards,
Shodan

[DSeid]

@QuickSilver

I keep hearing this about Gabbard. What’s the source of this accusation, and is there any truth in it?

It’s a nice sentiment. Every politician says it. Not every politician intends to precipitate a crisis by actually following through on it. It takes a very special idiot of low cunning to actually do it (as evidence shows). Warren doesn’t strike me as one of those.

To the first. There’s no evidence of collusion but she, like Trump, does seem to have the support of the Russian interference machine.

An independent analysis of the Russian news media found that RT, the Kremlin-backed news agency, mentioned Ms. Gabbard frequently for a candidate polling in single digits, according to data collected by the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a group that seeks to track and expose efforts by authoritarian regimes to undermine democratic elections.

Disinformation experts have also pointed to instances of suspicious activity surrounding Ms. Gabbard’s campaign — in particular, a Twitter hashtag, #KamalaHarrisDestroyed, that trended among Ms. Gabbard’s supporters after the first Democratic debate, and appeared to be amplified by a coordinated network of bot-like accounts — but there is no evidence of coordination between these networks and the campaign itself.

That article is part of what Gabbard was bashing in her debate bits.
As to the second - no, not all D politicians says no troops stationed anywhere outside of America, or even just the Mid-East, as the goal. Of those on the stage fairly few say that as an end goal. The more common sentiment is the one expressed by Biden and with better words by Buttigieg. Out of harm’s way and in small numbers in supportive roles is more the position that most are aiming for … and overweighting to expert diplomatic engagement than the false choice of either full military conflict vs. full disengagement of Fortress America.

American voters don’t want to have to deal with foreign policy and don’t want to have to care about it. Unfortunately informed self-interest makes dealing with it, investing in diplomatic solutions and even intelligent use of military options when necessary, unavoidable.

[ShadowFacts]

@DSeid

ShadowFacts, yes, subjective opinions vary. I was hoping to see her handle herself well. To my eye she did not. NO QUESTION that some others disagree. But I had moved over to believing her electability story and after last night I am questioning it again. I may not be representative of swingable primary voters. Or might be. The next two weeks will show. What was your subjective opinion?

Unfortunately, I had an event that night, so I only heard the very beginning part of the debate where she was talking about Medicare for All, and I think she could have handled it better. I don’t like when candidates repeat memorized phrases, and that’s exactly what she was doing. That said, it was also obvious she was being baited into saying she would raise taxes in a transparent “gotcha” attempt, and I think her choice was better than falling into that trap. I believe it would have been better if she had explained that head on, e.g. “my opponents are transparently trying to bait me into saying I’m going to raise taxes for future soundbite purposes, but I’m not going to fall for that, because this is not a soundbite issue, it’s vitally important for all Americans, and my plan results not only in net savings for middle class families, but also crucially removes the fear of bankruptcy from unforeseen medical expenses, as is the norm in every advanced western democracy.” But what she did is still better than falling for the trap.

[Lamoral]

When the nominee is eventually chosen and the general election comes around, I guaran-fucking-tee you that discussions of the minutiae of the ongoing Middle East conflict is not going to have any effect on either swing voters or turnout. People don’t want to think about this. They don’t want to know about it. They don’t care until there’s an actual Islamic terrorist attack inside the United States, which there hasn’t been in a long time and probably won’t be for a long time. The average voter does not understand ANYTHING about what is going on in Syria, they don’t know who the Kurds are or why anyone should care what Turkey is doing, they certainly have no comprehension of Russia’s role in any of this…it’s not going to be a “hearts and minds” issue, not like it was after 9/11.

Trump’s default answer on any of this stuff, in the debate, is going to be:

“BARACK OBAMA and HILLARY CLINTON, folks, created big, BIG problems there, and I knocked the hell out of ISIS and now we’re bringing troops home very strongly. We’ve bringing - which didn’t happen, by the way, with Obama, the troops…but it’s happening now VERY STRONGLY, think of it…here’s the story, folks, we knocked the hell out of ISIS, we’re going to help keep America strong again.”

I swear to God he’s literally going to say some variation of those exact words. Of course, the Democratic challenger is going to try to pick apart all of his foreign policy flaws, dissect out the entire geopolitical epic of Syria and Turkey and ISIS and the Kurds and Iran and all the rest, lay out detailed plans for what they think SHOULD have happened there, and so on. BUT IT WON’T MATTER.

What the Democratic candidate needs to have, during the election, is simple, easily-digestible sound bites regarding the whole situation, to the effect of “This stuff is the domain of generals and admirals, you know, the ones who are too bewildered and disgusted by the chaos of Trump’s administration to even work with him! I don’t have all the answers, but I’m goddamn sure going to work WITH the wisest and most experienced military officers and intelligence specialists, and not put them through a revolving door!”

This is IMO the best pivot from that question in the debates. If they try to play the “look how much I know about Syria and Iraq and the history of the modern Middle East conflict” game, they’re just wasting time.

[Sherrerd]

@DrDeth

And his more insane tweets may be losing him support.

Good point!

@SlackerInc

I thought Twitter had outright admitted that at least one of his tweets would be considered a violation of the rules from a regular citizen, but was allowed because of the newsworthiness of his being president. …

That does sound familiar—though, like you, I don’t recall any specifics.

If Trump tweeted ‘All patriots should show up at Pelosi’s home and gun her down, and here’s her address [posts actual address]’ then obviously Twitter would have to act. But as you say, they can offer the ‘he’s the President’ rationale for leaving him up so long as he refrains from outright calls for violence, and many people will find that to be reasonable.

I just think it’s a loser as a campaign for Harris, or anyone else for that matter. You will always get applause from Dem audiences if you say ‘aren’t you sick of hearing Trump’s voice on TV and sick of seeing his tweets?’

But to advocate for him being banned (assuming he refrains from the ‘shoot ____ down’ stuff) makes a candidate look …I don’t know, un-Presidential, somehow.

[SlackerInc]

I found a cite:

Twitter Stands by Trump Amid Calls to Terminate His Account (Published 2019)

SAN FRANCISCO — Twitter said on Tuesday that it would continue to be lenient with world leaders who appeared to violate its policies against violent speech because the company believed preserving those tweets served the public interest.
The announcement came as Twitter grapples with scrutiny for hosting President Trump’s increasingly virulent messages about the impeachment proceedings against him.

Under pressure from Democrats to take action against Mr. Trump’s account, Twitter said that it would take action against a world leader’s account only if it was used to threaten an individual, promote terrorism or self-harm, or post private information like a phone number.[…]

In June, Twitter said it planned to roll out a feature to hide abusive tweets from world leaders behind warning labels, rather than scrubbing them from the platform because the messages are newsworthy. That would strike a balance between making information available to the public and enforcing its policies against violence and abuse, the company said. The feature has yet to be used against any world leader’s account, including Mr. Trump’s.

“There are certain cases where it may be in the public’s interest to have access to certain tweets, even if they would otherwise be in violation of our rules,” Twitter said at the time.

@QuickSilver

It’s a nice sentiment. Every politician says it.

I don’t think it’s a nice sentiment, and I have heard very few politicians say it, outside of far left types like Dennis Kucinich and ultra-libertarians like Rand Paul.

[Sherrerd]

Interesting, Slacker; thanks.

[thorny_locust]

@Shodan

“What would you have done about Turkey if you were President?” seems to me to be a good question for a prospective President. Because it doesn’t lend itself to sound bites, and isn’t a gotcha.

It is a good question. But the format didn’t lend itself to anything but sound bites; nobody was given time enough to explain anything at all complicated.

@Shodan

Leave the troops in place and issue a stern warning not to hurt them, even by accident?

That seemed to be working, until Trump moved them out and issued permission instead of warnings. (Yes, I know he belatedly tried to throw some warnings in later on.)
– Warren didn’t say ‘The USA should pull all troops out of the middle east, no matter what.’ She said, in effect (this is not a direct quote), ‘ideally we should have no troops there, but before we can remove them we need to have a negotiated and stable situation. There is no military solution to this mess.’ Which is IMO an entirely sensible statement; except that I’m afraid there may be no negotiated/diplomatic solution, either; other than possibly to stagger on for another couple of hundred years trying to minimize further damage, in the hope that people will eventually think it more important to fight about something else; though as people have been fighting over this area for the past couple of thousand years at least that’s a pretty thin hope. For any candidate or POTUS to say out loud that there’s currently no possible solution at all, however, I think would indeed be a large mistake.

[Shodan]

@thorny_locust

It is a good question. But the format didn’t lend itself to anything but sound bites; nobody was given time enough to explain anything at all complicated.

Yes, debates aren’t the right format. But there should be some format somewhere where the press would ask that, and insist on an answer.

If the press wants to be taken seriously as a positive force in the elections, then by golly they have got to act like it. Stop this crap about who’s ahead and who had the best sound bite, and actually ask about something else - something substantive.

– Warren didn’t say ‘The USA should pull all troops out of the middle east, no matter what.’ She said, in effect (this is not a direct quote), ‘ideally we should have no troops there, but before we can remove them we need to have a negotiated and stable situation. There is no military solution to this mess.’ Which is IMO an entirely sensible statement; except that I’m afraid there may be no negotiated/diplomatic solution, either; other than possibly to stagger on for another couple of hundred years trying to minimize further damage, in the hope that people will eventually think it more important to fight about something else; though as people have been fighting over this area for the past couple of thousand years at least that’s a pretty thin hope. For any candidate or POTUS to say out loud that there’s currently no possible solution at all, however, I think would indeed be a large mistake.

Perhaps that mistake could be mitigated if the same question were asked of every candidate, with the same insistence on an answer.

“OK, smart guy - you said Warren was wrong when she said we couldn’t stop the Middle East from killing each other. What’s your solution?”

Which, as I say, isn’t going to happen. For fear that “we need to pull out, except not really” is going to get contrasted with “I said I would pull the troops out and I am going to do it. And I don’t intend to get in the middle of ISIS who hate everybody and Syria who hates the rebels who hate the Kurds who hate the Turks who hate the Islamacists who hate the Sunnis who hate the Shi’ites who hate everybody only marginally less than everybody else”.

Regards,
Shodan

[ISiddiqui]

@Shodan

Yes, debates aren’t the right format. But there should be some format somewhere where the press would ask that, and insist on an answer.

If the press wants to be taken seriously as a positive force in the elections, then by golly they have got to act like it. Stop this crap about who’s ahead and who had the best sound bite, and **actually ask about something else - something substantive.**Perhaps that mistake could be mitigated if the same question were asked of every candidate, with the same insistence on an answer.

Well there have been a number of televised town halls by CNN (though I’m not sure if there has been one on foreign policy yet) where the candidates get like a hour to discuss issues. However it seems no one really watches those and the only thing that catches on are sound bites from those.

So perhaps the press isn’t really the issue - it’s us as the voters who don’t care to tune into substantive policy discussion.

[SlackerInc]

@Sherrerd

Interesting, Slacker; thanks.

You’re welcome!

[RTFirefly]

@Shodan

“What would you have done about Turkey if you were President?” seems to me to be a good question for a prospective President.

The answer is, “nothing.”

If Trump had said and done nothing, Erdogan wouldn’t have had reason to believe he had a green light to invade.

Got any more softballs?

[thorny_locust]

@Shodan

Perhaps that mistake could be mitigated if the same question were asked of every candidate, with the same insistence on an answer.

I meant that in any context – not just in a debate – I think it would be a mistake not only for a candidate for POTUS but also for any actual POTUS to say, in effect ‘there is no visible solution to the mess in the Middle East; there is neither a military solution nor a diplomatic one.’ I think it would be a huge mistake because I think that publicly acknowledging that, by a person who is or may be about to be in a position to affect negotiations, would interfere with attempts to minimize damage.

Getting all the candidates to admit it wouldn’t help.

Trying to get all of them to seriously address what they would try to do is, I agree, a good idea – but it’s necessary to keep in mind that anything they try to do is going to run up against at least a dozen different sides all of whom have their own opinions and none of whom are going to hand their decision making over to the USA. That doesn’t mean the USA can have no influence; but it does mean that any specific plan isn’t likely, at least in its original form, to long survive dealing with the reality.