# The case for Hillary Clinton 2020
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-2020/802607
**Category:** Politics & Elections
**Created:** [November 24, 2017, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-2020/802607 "2017-11-24T17:43:07Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 10
### Author:  [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)
#### Post date: [November 28, 2017, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-2020/802607/182 "2017-11-28T21:56:14Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> Under certain circumstances, I think it’s a possibility, yes. One possible such circumstance goes something like this: President Clinton (shit, just typing this reminds me how grateful I am that this is only a hypothetical) orders a no-fly zone over Syria. Putin, not one to allow a woman to brow-beat him, orders his air force to ignore it. Clinton, in response, tells the USAF to shoot down Russian jets. Russians and Americans have a lovely little air war over Syria. Things escalate. Perhaps they bomb Incirlik or torpedo a destroyer in the Mediterranean. Things escalate further. Significant portions of the Russian military are destroyed in the process. Faced with losing a war, Putin decides to push the big red button. We respond in kind. Shitloads of people die.
>
> I really believe something like this would have been possible if Clinton had won the election. To claim that such a thing is impossible strikes me as deeply ignorant.
Wow, you really believe this? You really believe that Clinton would have made Putin commit national suicide? Yeah the word ignorance really does come to mind right now. Another thing this tells me is just how powerful right wing propaganda is. Its amazing what fear mongering can make people believe…
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [November 28, 2017, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-2020/802607/183 "2017-11-28T21:56:58Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> Under certain circumstances, I think it’s a possibility, yes. One possible such circumstance goes something like this: President Clinton (shit, just typing this reminds me how grateful I am that this is only a hypothetical) orders a no-fly zone over Syria. Putin, not one to allow a woman to brow-beat him, orders his air force to ignore it. Clinton, in response, tells the USAF to shoot down Russian jets. Russians and Americans have a lovely little air war over Syria. Things escalate. Perhaps they bomb Incirlik or torpedo a destroyer in the Mediterranean. Things escalate further. Significant portions of the Russian military are destroyed in the process. Faced with losing a war, Putin decides to push the big red button. We respond in kind. Shitloads of people die.
>
> I really believe something like this would have been possible if Clinton had won the election. To claim that such a thing is impossible strikes me as deeply ignorant.
Thinking that this is more likely than a foreign policy catastrophe of similar scale due to the blunders of a president with no knowledge of foreign policy, no discipline or control over his emotions and rhetoric, no ability to separate the personal from the political, who has actually suggested that using nuclear weapons in a first strike should be considered, no ability to learn from his mistakes or actually learn any new facts, no ability to separate fact from fiction, strikes me as both deeply ignorant and highly delusional.
---
### Author:  [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)
#### Post date: [November 28, 2017, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-2020/802607/184 "2017-11-28T21:58:10Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> Under certain circumstances, I think it’s a possibility, yes. One possible such circumstance goes something like this: President Clinton (shit, just typing this reminds me how grateful I am that this is only a hypothetical) orders a no-fly zone over Syria. Putin, not one to allow a woman to brow-beat him, orders his air force to ignore it. Clinton, in response, tells the USAF to shoot down Russian jets. Russians and Americans have a lovely little air war over Syria. Things escalate. Perhaps they bomb Incirlik or torpedo a destroyer in the Mediterranean. Things escalate further. Significant portions of the Russian military are destroyed in the process. Faced with losing a war, Putin decides to push the big red button. We respond in kind. Shitloads of people die.
>
> I really believe something like this would have been possible if Clinton had won the election. To claim that such a thing is impossible strikes me as deeply ignorant.
Would you put the same scenario if Putin decided to invade the Ukraine? That Clinton may have the brow-beating nerve to challenge him there, and that leads to a nuclear confrontation? Is there any move that Putin could make, and country that he could invade over there that would be worth the risk of us defending it with the potential or it escalating?
It sounds like your concern is Putin’s actions, not the person that is in power in the US, and your concern for the person in power in the US is that they not attempt to thwart putin’s plans for conquest.
What do you think that trump should do if putin moves into the ukraine? How would this differ from what you would want clinton to do?
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [November 28, 2017, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-2020/802607/185 "2017-11-28T22:01:50Z")
> [@Airbeck](#):
>
> Wow, you really believe this? You really believe that Clinton would have made Putin commit national suicide? Yeah the word ignorance really does come to mind right now. Another thing this tells me is just how powerful right wing propaganda is. Its amazing what fear mongering can make people believe…
I really believe it was a _possibility_. I’d put the _probability_ quite low, although not low enough that I’d be comfortable with her in a decision-making role.
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [November 28, 2017, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-2020/802607/186 "2017-11-28T22:06:25Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> Thinking that this is more likely than a foreign policy catastrophe of similar scale due to the blunders of a president with no knowledge of foreign policy, no discipline or control over his emotions and rhetoric, no ability to separate the personal from the political, who has actually suggested that using nuclear weapons in a first strike should be considered, no ability to learn from his mistakes or actually learn any new facts, no ability to separate fact from fiction, strikes me as both deeply ignorant and highly delusional.
I never said I thought it was “more likely”, although truthfully I have a difficult time imagining a “a foreign policy catastrophe of similar scale”. What do you think would count as “a foreign policy catastrophe of similar scale”?
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [November 28, 2017, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-2020/802607/187 "2017-11-28T22:15:13Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#):
>
> Would you put the same scenario if Putin decided to invade the Ukraine? That Clinton may have the brow-beating nerve to challenge him there, and that leads to a nuclear confrontation?
Sure, that’s another possibility.
> [@k9bfriender](#):
>
> Is there any move that Putin could make, and country that he could invade over there that would be worth the risk of us defending it with the potential or it escalating?
Sure, for starters, NATO members. If Putin initiates hostility against a NATO member, we should come to their defense, fiercely.
> [@k9bfriender](#):
>
> It sounds like your concern is Putin’s actions, not the person that is in power in the US, and your concern for the person in power in the US is that they not attempt to thwart putin’s plans for conquest.
No, my concern is the person that thinks stopping Russians from bombing Syrian rebels is worth the possibility of a nuclear war that accompanies shooting down Russian jets.
> [@k9bfriender](#):
>
> What do you think that trump should do if putin moves into the ukraine? How would this differ from what you would want clinton to do?
I don’t know exactly, but I’m confident that “shoot down Russian jets with American missiles launched from American jets” is not among my first few preferences.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [November 28, 2017, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-2020/802607/188 "2017-11-28T22:41:55Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> I never said I thought it was “more likely”, although truthfully I have a difficult time imagining a “a foreign policy catastrophe of similar scale”. What do you think would count as “a foreign policy catastrophe of similar scale”?
Some other large nuclear exchange, a world war that resulted in millions of casualties and even more refugees, etc.
Sure, those aren’t terribly likely, but they seem more likely to me with a competence-free, discipline-free, curiosity-free, compassion-free, control-free, decency-free, and possibly sanity-free nincompoop as President than with an experienced but unprincipled pol.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [November 28, 2017, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-2020/802607/189 "2017-11-28T22:43:08Z")
Also, considering that Trump has explicitly flirted (rhetorically) with the idea of a nuclear first strike, I don’t find it credible that someone considers Clinton’s rhetorical flirting with a no-fly-zone that might affect Russian planes as somehow more dangerous.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [November 28, 2017, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-2020/802607/190 "2017-11-28T22:55:30Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> Also, considering that Trump has explicitly flirted (rhetorically) with the idea of a nuclear first strike, I don’t find it credible that someone considers Clinton’s rhetorical flirting with a no-fly-zone that might affect Russian planes as somehow more dangerous.
I should have worded this in a way that doesn’t imply dishonesty; apologies if that’s how it comes across. I don’t find the idea credible, but I won’t say anything about anyone’s sincerity.
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [November 28, 2017, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-2020/802607/191 "2017-11-28T23:07:04Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> Some other large nuclear exchange, a world war that resulted in millions of casualties and even more refugees, etc.
>
> Sure, those aren’t terribly likely, but they seem more likely to me with a competence-free, discipline-free, curiosity-free, compassion-free, control-free, decency-free, and possibly sanity-free nincompoop as President than with an experienced but unprincipled pol.
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> Also, considering that Trump has explicitly flirted (rhetorically) with the idea of a nuclear first strike, I don’t find it credible that someone considers Clinton’s rhetorical flirting with a no-fly-zone that might affect Russian planes as somehow more dangerous.
He’s rhetorically flirted with the idea of a nuclear first strike on North Korea? Or on Russia? I don’t follow the man on Twitter (or anyone actually), so I’m not exactly clear on what this refers to. Assuming it is North Korea and not Russia, we’re back to this:
“global nuclear annihilation” vs “nuclear war”. The former is much, MUCH worse than the latter. The only ones that can do the former are the USA and Russia. You said “some other large nuclear exchange”, but every other nuclear exchange is going to be significantly smaller and with significantly fewer casualties than a USA-vs-Russia full nuclear exchange. Hell, a nuclear strike on North Korea probably wouldn’t even result in an “exchange” because they probably don’t have the situational awareness and response times or second-strike capabilities to get off a nuclear strike before their capacity is destroyed.
Please note, this is not an endorsement of that “strategy”, just an attempt at a sober view of the likely consequences.
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [November 28, 2017, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-2020/802607/192 "2017-11-28T23:24:47Z")
Vaguely on-topic: [North Korea just launched another ballistic missile](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/north-korea-fires-missile-for-the-first-time-in-more-than-two-months/2017/11/28/0c136952-d46c-11e7-9461-ba77d604373d_story.html).
> [@](#):
>
> The missile launched early Wednesday local time traveled some 620 miles and reached a height of about 2,800 miles before landing off the coast of Japan, flying for a total of 54 minutes. This suggested it had been fired almost straight up — on a “lofted trajectory” similar to North Korea’s two previous intercontinental ballistic missile tests.
>
> The Pentagon said the missile did indeed appear to be an intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM. The latest missile “went higher, frankly, than any previous shot they’ve taken,” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said. He described the launch as part of an effort to build missiles “that can threaten everywhere in the world.”
---
### Author:  [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)
#### Post date: [November 28, 2017, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-2020/802607/193 "2017-11-28T23:30:05Z")
**HurricaneDitka** , what you describe is one possible scenario for how a nuclear war might start. But key in your scenario is that the US President makes threats, and the Russian president doesn’t believe those threats. Do you believe that this failure of communication is made more or less likely by having a president who think that it’s a virtue to be unpredictable, and to make moves that none of the other players could possibly anticipate? Scenarios like yours are precisely why everyone with any political or foreign policy experience didn’t want Trump in the White House.
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [November 28, 2017, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-2020/802607/194 "2017-11-28T23:38:07Z")
> [@Chronos](#):
>
> … Do you believe that this failure of communication is made more or less likely by having a president who think that it’s a virtue to be unpredictable, and to make moves that none of the other players could possibly anticipate? …
I think you’re probably overstating the degree to which Trump thinks it’s a virtue to be unpredictable, at least on the foreign relations / possible war front. For example, if Trump decides to order air strikes against North Korea, do you think that would be a move “that none of the other players could possibly anticipate” or one that’s been hinted at for some time now?
ETA: for reference, you might refer to this piece: [Marc Thiessen: Trump should take out the site where North Korea just launched a missile](http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/11/28/marc-thiessen-trump-should-take-out-site-where-north-korea-just-launched-missile.html)
> [@Chronos](#):
>
> … everyone with any political or foreign policy experience didn’t want Trump in the White House.
This is just hyperbole, right?
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [November 28, 2017, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-2020/802607/195 "2017-11-28T23:40:20Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> He’s rhetorically flirted with the idea of a nuclear first strike on North Korea? Or on Russia? I don’t follow the man on Twitter (or anyone actually), so I’m not exactly clear on what this refers to. Assuming it is North Korea and not Russia, we’re back to this:
>
> “global nuclear annihilation” vs “nuclear war”. The former is much, MUCH worse than the latter. The only ones that can do the former are the USA and Russia. You said “some other large nuclear exchange”, but every other nuclear exchange is going to be significantly smaller and with significantly fewer casualties than a USA-vs-Russia full nuclear exchange. Hell, a nuclear strike on North Korea probably wouldn’t even result in an “exchange” because they probably don’t have the situational awareness and response times or second-strike capabilities to get off a nuclear strike before their capacity is destroyed.
>
> Please note, this is not an endorsement of that “strategy”, just an attempt at a sober view of the likely consequences.
I don’t think there’s any possible “sober view” of the circumstances that could conclude that there is a greater likelihood of some foreign policy mass-casualty catastrophe, including a global nuclear exchange, from an experienced but unprincipled pol as President vice a competence-free, discipline-free, curiosity-free, compassion-free, control-free, decency-free, and possibly sanity-free nincompoop as President who has explicitly flirted rhetorically with a nuclear first strike (on anyone – he didn’t limit it to any particular enemy, explicitly saying that no cards are off the table).
If rhetorically flirting with a no-fly-zone in Syria makes you fearful of a global nuclear exchange, rhetorically flirting with further nuclear proliferation and even using nuclear weapons in Europe (or against anyone!) should absolutely terrify the shit out of you.
---
### Author:  [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)
#### Post date: [November 28, 2017, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-2020/802607/196 "2017-11-28T23:45:28Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> So your guesstimates are that a nuclear exchange with Russia is definitely not going to happen? You think the situation merits that kind of certitude? Even with Trump and Putin leading the two respective countries? Well, at least if you’re wrong, none of us will be around to tell you we told you so.
Would you say that Trump and Putin are _especially_ likely to start a USA/Russia nuclear war? Which of the two is more likely?
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [November 28, 2017, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-2020/802607/197 "2017-11-28T23:51:20Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> … some foreign policy mass-casualty catastrophe …
As I’ve noted, not all foreign policy mass-casualty catastrophes are created equal. Some might kill hundreds, or thousands. Others might kill millions or billions. The worst one I can imagine seemed more likely under Clinton than Trump.
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> … rhetorically flirting with further nuclear proliferation and even using nuclear weapons in Europe (or against anyone!) should absolutely terrify the shit out of you.
I’m still not clear what rhetorically flirting you’re referring to. Was there a tweet I should be aware of? An answer to a question at a press conference? As I’ve said in other discussions, I’m not terribly concerned that Trump’s going to wake up one day and decide to nuke Germany or Sweden. But maybe that’s because I missed the point in time he threatened to do something like that. Share the goods with me. When was Trump “rhetorically flirting with further nuclear proliferation and even using nuclear weapons in Europe (or against anyone!)”?
---
### Author:  [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)
#### Post date: [November 28, 2017, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-2020/802607/198 "2017-11-28T23:52:15Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> This is just hyperbole, right?
Nope. Guess this somehow escaped your notice:
> [@](#):
>
> [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/us/politics/national-security-gop-donald-trump.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/us/politics/national-security-gop-donald-trump.html)
Note that these 50 are all Republican foreign policy experts. The number would be astronomically higher if Democratic foreign policy experts were also included.
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [November 28, 2017, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-2020/802607/199 "2017-11-28T23:54:13Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#):
>
> Would you say that Trump and Putin are _especially_ likely to start a USA/Russia nuclear war? Which of the two is more likely?
I think the chances of a USA/Russia nuclear war are considerably less under Trump than they would have been if Clinton had won. I don’t think I’d rate the possibility particularly likely even under a hypothetical Clinton administration, but the truly cataclysmic consequences of such an outcome earned it some consideration. I’m not sure if that’s what you were referring to with your question about “the two”.
---
### Author:  [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)
#### Post date: [November 28, 2017, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-2020/802607/200 "2017-11-28T23:55:26Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> I’m still not clear what rhetorically flirting you’re referring to. Was there a tweet I should be aware of? An answer to a question at a press conference? As I’ve said in other discussions, I’m not terribly concerned that Trump’s going to wake up one day and decide to nuke Germany or Sweden. But maybe that’s because I missed the point in time he threatened to do something like that. Share the goods with me. When was Trump “rhetorically flirting with further nuclear proliferation and even using nuclear weapons in Europe (or against anyone!)”?
Sigh
More stuff that escaped your notice first time around…
[https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/trump-wanted-dramatic-increase-nuclear-arsenal-meeting-military-leaders-n809701](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/trump-wanted-dramatic-increase-nuclear-arsenal-meeting-military-leaders-n809701)
[http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/290217-scarborough-trump-asked-about-adviser-about-using-nuclear](http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/290217-scarborough-trump-asked-about-adviser-about-using-nuclear)
Not fake news
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [November 28, 2017, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-2020/802607/201 "2017-11-28T23:57:17Z")
> [@Airbeck](#):
>
> Nope. Guess this somehow escaped your notice:
>
> Note that these 50 are all Republican foreign policy experts. The number would be astronomically higher if Democratic foreign policy experts were also included.
Nope. Is it your contention that these 50 people are “everyone with any political or foreign policy experience”?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-2020/802607.md?page=9)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-2020/802607.md?page=11)