The 2016 Republican candidates

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

Bombing would be. Actually winning, well, that’s more hope.

Huh? Please use the quote function. I have no idea what you’re referring to.

But if the Clinton administration was willing to bomb a European country and Russian ally, you can bet they’d be willing to bomb a poor Asian country with no allies.

For a good enough reason I might even support it – I’m not anti-war in all cases, just in the stupid ones (and at this point, going back into Iraq or going into Iran would be monumentally stupid). The reasons suggested so far by Republicans aren’t even close.

See, here’s what gets to me about “you people”(Democrats). It’s hard to argue about a candidate’s stances when they actually have two: their official stance(all options are on the table, Iran WILL NOT get a nuclear weapon, we will use force to prevent that), from their “real” stance. We saw it on gay marriage too. It has to stop. Either the candidates are who they say they are and you should defend who they say they are, or they are lying, in which case there is no defense for them whatsoever that can be made on a discussion board that claims to exist to fight ignorance.

All candidates do this. You seem to think that McCain and other Republicans are more honest than Hillary, but I have no idea why. The facts don’t support this – quite the contrary, according to Politifact.

Are there any Republicans in the field where we’re arguing that they don’t really mean what they say they mean?

All of them except maybe Ben Carson. And in most cases, if they truly were honest and actually meant what they said, it would be even worse. An honest madman is not better than a lying scoundrel.

[ElvisL1ves]

@adaher

Actually winning, well, that’s more hope.

Worse, you’re hoping *against *fact and precedent.

Are there any Republicans in the field where we’re arguing that they don’t really mean what they say they mean?

No, the criticism (well, laughter mainly) is generally on a more fundamental level. Not that it helps you.

[Rick_Kitchen]

I can see it now, President John Bolton and his Secretary of State, John McCain. We’d be at war with Iran, Russia, Syria, North Korea and China within six weeks.

[wonky]

@Rick_Kitchen

I can see it now, President John Bolton and his Secretary of State, John McCain. We’d be at war with Iran, Russia, Syria, North Korea and China within six weeks.

But with a presidential portrait that can stand next to the best of them!

[elucidator]

@Rick_Kitchen

I can see it now, President John Bolton and his Secretary of State, John McCain. We’d be at war with Iran, Russia, Syria, North Korea and China within six weeks.

Along with Belgium, Upper Volta, Chad, and the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.

[adaher]

@iiandyiiii

All candidates do this. You seem to think that McCain and other Republicans are more honest than Hillary, but I have no idea why. The facts don’t support this – quite the contrary, according to Politifact.

That wasn’t my point. My point was that we either argue their official positions, or we don’t take them seriously as candidates. Anyone who says that Clinton won’t bomb Iran is ignoring her official position on the issue, as well as stated US policy under three consecutive administrations, as well as her history.

Clinton will bomb Iran if it’s the only way to keep Iran from the bomb.

All of them except maybe Ben Carson. And in most cases, if they truly were honest and actually meant what they said, it would be even worse. An honest madman is not better than a lying scoundrel.

Give us an example where a Republican says they support one thing, but actually supports another. You don’t have to prove anything here, just give an example where YOU think the candidate is lying about their real position.

And even if you can come up with something, can you come up with an example of a poster arguing in favor of what they say they don’t believe as if they really, secretly, believe it? Sorry, only your side does that.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

That wasn’t my point. My point was that we either argue their official positions, or we don’t take them seriously as candidates. Anyone who says that Clinton won’t bomb Iran is ignoring her official position on the issue, as well as stated US policy under three consecutive administrations, as well as her history.

Clinton will bomb Iran if it’s the only way to keep Iran from the bomb.

That makes it easy then, since bombing Iran won’t keep them from the bomb, and may even make it more likely.

[adaher]

That’s a great argument to make in a thread about whether we should ever use force against IRan to prevent them from getting a bomb. But as of today, it’s official US policy, and the official stance of every major candidate for the Presidency, that force is on the table to prevent Iran from getting nukes.

Which is why any contention that Clinton won’t do it raises eyebrows. If one is going to argue that Clinton is better on war and peace issues than any of the Republicans, then there should be something in Clinton’s statements or record that is evidence of this.

Conversely, do you have any evidence that any Republican candidate has more hawkish views or a more hawkish record than Clinton? Does anybody have such evidence?

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

That’s a great argument to make in a thread about whether we should ever use force against IRan to prevent them from getting a bomb. But as of today, it’s official US policy, and the official stance of every major candidate for the Presidency, that force is on the table to prevent Iran from getting nukes.

The “official stance” is that force has not been eliminated as an option. But the President’s stance (which Hillary has expressed support for) is much less likely to lead to war than the ridiculous stances of the Republicans, which include nonsense like we’re ‘coddling’ Iran, Obama prefers the Mullahs to Americans, Obama wants Iran to have nukes, Obama wants Israel to be destroyed, and letters to Iranian leaders that Obama can’t be trusted. That’s ridiculous war-mongering – Hillary and Obama have repudiated it, and none of the Republicans have.

Which is why any contention that Clinton won’t do it raises eyebrows. If one is going to argue that Clinton is better on war and peace issues than any of the Republicans, then there should be something in Clinton’s statements or record that is evidence of this.

There is – she supports the President’s negotiations, which are far more likely to lead to a peaceful solution, and the Republican candidates say ridiculous things and advocate war or brinksmanship. Including Paul.

[adaher]

@iiandyiiii

The “official stance” is that force has not been eliminated as the option. But the President’s stance (which Hillary has expressed support for) is much less likely to lead to war than the ridiculous stances of the Republicans, which include nonsense like we’re ‘coddling’ Iran, Obama prefers the Mullahs to Americans, Obama wants Iran to have nukes, Obama wants Israel to be destroyed, and letters to Iranian leaders that Obama can’t be trusted. That’s ridiculous war-mongering – Hillary and Obama have repudiated it, and none of the Republicans have.

Which tells us absolutely nothing about how likely Republicans are to go to war compared to Clinton.

There is – she supports the President’s negotiations, which are far more likely to lead to a peaceful solution, and the Republican candidates say ridiculous things and advocate war or brinksmanship. Including Paul.

Negotiations don’t always necessarily lead to peace, in fact they can make war more likely if a bad deal emerges. The classic example is Munich, and I agree that the Munich comparison is often overused, but any deal that makes it easier for Iran to get nukes makes war more likely. Besides, there is no deal and the two sides don’t even seem close to a deal anymore. The next President is probably the one that will have a decision to make.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

Which tells us absolutely nothing about how likely Republicans are to go to war compared to Clinton.

Says you – to me, it says a lot. Lindsay Graham still thinks Iraq was a good idea. That’s a pretty good indication that he’s fucking deluded about foreign policy. And he’s not the only one.

Negotiations don’t always necessarily lead to peace, in fact they can make war more likely if a bad deal emerges. The classic example is Munich, and I agree that the Munich comparison is often overused, but any deal that makes it easier for Iran to get nukes makes war more likely. Besides, there is no deal and the two sides don’t even seem close to a deal anymore. The next President is probably the one that will have a decision to make.

We’ll see about how the negotiations go, but the Republican rhetoric has been nonsense. Hillary supports the President, which is the real-world non-crazy path to peace.

[ElvisL1ves]

Graham does gently suggest that armed insurrection and a second Civil War would be unwise.

Unlike Cruz.

[adaher]

@iiandyiiii

We’ll see about how the negotiations go, but the Republican rhetoric has been nonsense. Hillary supports the President, which is the real-world non-crazy path to peace.

IF a viable deal emerges. If a bad deal is signed and it goes south before the campaign is even over, that changes things drastically. Be interesting to see what kind of rhetoric Clinton uses then and it’ll be more interesting to see what you think about it. Because I think she’ll go into beast mode at that point.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

IF a viable deal emerges. If a bad deal is signed and it goes south before the campaign is even over, that changes things drastically. Be interesting to see what kind of rhetoric Clinton uses then and it’ll be more interesting to see what you think about it. Because I think she’ll go into beast mode at that point.

That’s a lot of ifs. No one wants a bad deal to be signed, including me. Though I sincerely doubt that Lindsay Graham, John Bolton, or even Bush and Paul are constitutionally capable of recognizing a good deal. I’ll be very impressed if a good deal is signed and any significant Republican leader agrees that it’s a good deal.

[adaher]

We’ve been hearing that about Republicans for a long time, but other than GWB, Republicans Presidents have always gotten good deals. Somewhere along the line of “tough, smart negotiations” Democrats dropped the “tough” part. Which means they actually dropped the smart part as well.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

We’ve been hearing that about Republicans for a long time, but other than GWB, Republicans Presidents have always gotten good deals. Somewhere along the line of “tough, smart negotiations” Democrats dropped the “tough” part. Which means they actually dropped the smart part as well.

I don’t believe you without cites. These sound like ridiculous assertions.

Further, pre-1996 Republicans are much, much more similar to today’s Democrats in terms of pragmatism and realism. Today’s Republican party does not live in the real world, as far as foreign policy (and many other issues).

[adaher]

@iiandyiiii

I don’t believe you without cites. These sound like ridiculous assertions.

SALT, ABM treaty, INF treaty, START I and II. Even under GWB, there’s the agreement to get Qaddafi to turn over his weapons under Bush.

For Democrats we have the agreement with North Korea(they built nukes at our expense, great deal that was), Syria(still haven’t met their benchmarks for turning over their chem weapons), SALT II(fell apart when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan).

But if you can think of any examples of Democrats getting a good deal, you’re welcome to cite it. I’m sure there are some. My argument was simply that despite their warmongering reputation, cultivated by Democrats since Goldwater and about as accurate as Republicans calling Democrats socialists, is just a BIT overstated. Reagan was supposed to start WWIII and he did more to end the Cold War than anyone else.

That’s because Republicans negotiate from a position of strength. Democrats, especially this generation of Democrats, thought that a nuclear freeze was a good way to make the Soviets see our good intentions.

Further, pre-1996 Republicans are much, much more similar to today’s Democrats in terms of pragmatism and realism. Today’s Republican party does not live in the real world, as far as foreign policy (and many other issues).

Pure nonsense that you can’t even begin to prove. There is nothing pragmatic about negotiating from a position of weakness. Nothing realistic about it either, since last I checked we are still the most powerful nation on Earth by a wide margin.

[adaher]

Now I will concede that SOME GOP candidates have no idea what they are talking about when they mouth off on foreign policy issues. Those candidates are unlikely to be nominated.

[elucidator]

Ah! Well, that’s all sorted out, then. Load off my mind, let me tell you.

[elucidator]

@adaher

…But if you can think of any examples of Democrats getting a good deal, you’re welcome to cite it…

JFK and the Cuba Missile Crisis. Pretty good deal. Not bad, considering. Hey, could have been worse! Lots.

…Reagan was supposed to start WWIII and he did more to end the Cold War than anyone else…

Yeah. So, tell us, how is that Granada Memorial coming along?

…That’s because Republicans negotiate from a position of strength…

Well, yes, the way Nixon negotiated peace with honor. After the Tet Offensive, there was no chance that war wasn’t lost. But wait! The Tet Offensive was a total disaster for the NVA/VC, catastrophic losses! They lost!

True. But they didn’t give up, like they were supposed to, like sensible people do. And even when they totally screwed the strategic pooch…they were still there. And there was, finally, nothing we could do about it but bleed. We had all that strength, and it wasn’t worth shit.

May I humbly suggest that the “position of strength” is not all its cracked up to be?

…Democrats, especially this generation of Democrats, thought that a nuclear freeze was a good way to make the Soviets see our good intentions…

Perhaps to at least let them know that some of us had good intentions.

The Soviets were in the “use them or lose them” dilemma. Oversimplified, if a war were to start and the Soviets struck first, they would probably lose. Very probably. If they did not strike first, they definitely lose, plus don’t even get to strike back.

This was our position of strength: hit us first, you probably die, let us hit first, you surely die. Yeah, I think a bit of reassurance was in order. I mean, just as long as we’re not being all weak about it, or anything…

…since last I checked we are still the most powerful nation on Earth by a wide margin.

Whoopity fucka doo. While its true that only the lead sled dog has a view, he spends most of his time looking back over one shoulder then the other. So what good is having a view?