The case for Hillary Clinton 2020

[iiandyiiii]

@HurricaneDitka

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.

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!)”?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/274862-trump-wont-rule-out-nukes-in-europe

“Europe is a big place. I’m not going to take cards off the table. We have nuclear capability. Now, our capability is going down rapidly because of what we’re doing. It’s in bad shape. The equipment is not properly maintained. There are all lot of talk about that. And that’s a bad thing, not a good thing. The last person to use nuclear would be Donald Trump. That’s the way I feel. I think it is a horrible thing. The thought of it is horrible. But I don’t want to take anything off the table. We have to negotiate. There will be times maybe when we’re going to be in a very deep, very difficult, very horrible negotiation. The last person — I’m not going to take it off the table. And I said it yesterday. And I stay with it.”

- YouTube

"CNN's WOLF BLITZER: But — but you’re ready to let Japan and South Korea become nuclear powers?

TRUMP: I am prepared to — if they’re not going to take care of us properly, we cannot afford to be the military and the police for the world. We are, right now, the police for the entire world. We are policing the entire world.

You know, when people look at our military and they say, “Oh, wow, that’s fantastic,” they have many, many times — you know, we spend many times what any other country spends on the military. But it’s not really for us. We’re defending other countries.

So all I’m saying is this: They have to pay.

And you know what? I’m prepared to walk, and if they have to defend themselves against North Korea, where you have a maniac over there, in my opinion, if they don’t — if they don’t take care of us properly, if they don’t respect us enough to take care of us properly, then you know what’s going to have to happen, Wolf?

It’s very simple. They’re going to have to defend themselves."

Face the Nation transcripts January 3, 2016: Trump, Morell & Donilon

"DICKERSON: They talk about the presidency and who has the finger on the button. The United States has not used nuclear weapons since 1945. When should it?

TRUMP: Well, it is an absolute last stance. And, you know, I use the word unpredictable. You want to be unpredictable."

Trump said all these things (and many many more totally batshit things about nuclear weapons). And Clinton talked about a no-fly-zone. And a massive nuclear exchange is more likely under a President Clinton than Trump?

That’s totally nuts. Batshit bonkers crazy. Ludicrous and unbelievable.

[Airbeck]

@HurricaneDitka

Nope. Is it your contention that these 50 people are “everyone with any political or foreign policy experience”?

Did I say that this 50 was everyone with foreign policy experience that opposed Trump?
Where did I make that claim? I just thought maybe people from your own tribe might be able to have an affect on your opinions here. Guess not.

Anything to say about these 50 Republican foreign policy experts’ warnings about Trump? Anything at all of substance in response?

Let’s try this, can you find any foreign policy experts that actually endorsed Trump?

[HurricaneDitka]

@Airbeck

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

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/290217-scarborough-trump-asked-about-adviser-about-using-nuclear

Not fake news

Trump said “No, I don’t think so” and “I’m not going to use nuclear, but I’m not taking any cards off the table”. That sounds pretty much like USA’s standard foreign policy for the last several decades.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Airbeck

… Let’s try this, can you find any foreign policy experts that actually endorsed Trump?

Probably, but first: Do you know what “moving the goalposts” means, and why that question would be relevant in response to your post?

The original quote was this:

@Chronos

… everyone with any political or foreign policy experience didn’t want Trump in the White House.

Can you spot the differences between that claim and your question to me?

[Airbeck]

Oh. Was that the only sentence you saw in those two links? Wonder why you ignored the actual content of both links…

[Airbeck]

@HurricaneDitka

Probably, but first: Do you know what “moving the goalposts” means, and why that question would be relevant in response to your post?

Do you know what the word condescending means?

[iiandyiiii]

@HurricaneDitka

Trump said “No, I don’t think so” and “I’m not going to use nuclear, but I’m not taking any cards off the table”. That sounds pretty much like USA’s standard foreign policy for the last several decades.

Taking the “first strike” card off the table has absolutely been standard foreign policy for the last several decades. Explicitly leaving that card on the table, and suggesting that perhaps more countries should have nuclear weapons, and suggesting that the USA needs many, many more nuclear weapons, are all extremely dangerous ideas that are decidedly non-standard in terms of US foreign policy.

[HurricaneDitka]

@iiandyiiii

Trump said all these things (and many many more totally batshit things about nuclear weapons).

This:

The last person to use nuclear would be Donald Trump. That’s the way I feel. I think it is a horrible thing. The thought of it is horrible. But I don’t want to take anything off the table.

has pretty much been the US’s position for decades now.

@iiandyiiii

And Clinton talked about a no-fly-zone. And a massive nuclear exchange is more likely under a President Clinton than Trump?

With Russia (the only country really capable of having a “massive nuclear exchange” with us), yes.

[HurricaneDitka]

@iiandyiiii

Taking the “first strike” card off the table has absolutely been standard foreign policy for the last several decades.

Cite?

ETA: you might want to start here: No first use - Wikipedia

The United States has refused to adopt a no-first-use policy, saying that it “reserves the right to use” nuclear weapons first in the case of conflict.

[iiandyiiii]

@HurricaneDitka

This:

has pretty much been the US’s position for decades now.

Trump directly conflicted this in the same answer (as he often does). He explicitly said he wouldn’t take any cards off the table.

With Russia (the only country really capable of having a “massive nuclear exchange” with us), yes.

That’s batshit bonkers wingnut crazy. I’ll assume you sincerely believe it, but I can’t even wrap my head around it, considering all the things Trump has said, that talk about a no-fly-zone is somehow more dangerous (for Russia or anyone else) than the dozens/hundreds of totally batshit things on nuclear weapons that Trump has said.

We live on different planets if flirting with nuclear proliferation, and explicitly leaving first-strike on the table, is less dangerous than a possible no-fly-zone.

[iiandyiiii]

@HurricaneDitka

Cite?

ETA: you might want to start here: No first use - Wikipedia

No President has ever stated that the US might launch nuclear weapons in a first strike. Not a single one.

[iiandyiiii]

There’s no nitpicking that can put those Trump statements in the “sane and rational and reasonable and not dangerous” box. Why are you even trying?

[iiandyiiii]

Alright, I’ll put it this way.

If Hillary Clinton hadn’t said anything about no-fly-zones, would you believe that a nuclear war with Russia would have been less likely with her as President than with Trump? Would you have voted for her?

[HurricaneDitka]

@iiandyiiii

… leaving first-strike on the table …

This is exactly what the USA has done for decades. Trump hasn’t instituted any sort of dramatic change on that front. The USA has held open the possibility of a first nuclear strike in some circumstances for decades.

ETA: I’m really surprised you don’t understand this long-standing US policy.

[TruCelt]

I honestly can’t think of a more asinine mistake the Dems could make than running Hillary Clinton again. Many people think that’s the explanation for her recent series of talk-show visits. Huge, huge nightmare if she did. The best thing she could possibly do for the nation would be to assure us all that she doesn’t intend to run.

Or, I don’t know. Maybe she’s running interference for Elizabeth Warren, drawing the fire so she doesn’t get attacked too early. In which case I approve.

[iiandyiiii]

@HurricaneDitka

This is exactly what the USA has done for decades. Trump hasn’t instituted any sort of dramatic change on that front. The USA has held open the possibility of a first nuclear strike in some circumstances for decades.

ETA: I’m really surprised you don’t understand this long-standing US policy.

I’ve decided I’m not going to discuss this further with you at this time. There’s no possibility of productive discussion based on the things that you’ve said. Disregard my last few posts; I wish I hadn’t continued trying.

[foolsguinea]

If I understand HurricaneDitka’s point, it’s that supposedly Vladimir Putin, specifically, would be so contemptuous of a female head of government that he would be more likely to escalate against us with HRC in charge than with DJT in charge–even though DJT is a political naif, whose previous career involved furnishing luxury apartments for well-heeled New Yorkers.

This seems to be literally on the level of claiming that Isaac Mizrahi would make a better President of the USA than Samantha Power, because Putin is just that sexist, you guys. It deserves open scorn.

[HurricaneDitka]

@iiandyiiii

I’ve decided I’m not going to discuss this further with you at this time. There’s no possibility of productive discussion based on the things that you’ve said. Disregard my last few posts; I wish I hadn’t continued trying.

Fine, but just to clarify for any other readers of this thread. iiandyiiii is absolutely, flat-out, completely wrong on his understanding of US nuclear policy. Here is a review of our policy from Bill Clinton’s presidency:

… In this context, Bell explained that it is U.S. policy not to use nuclear weapons first against any state except in three cases. First, “if a state that we are engaged in conflict with is a nuclear-capable state, we do not necessarily intend to wait until that state uses nuclear weapons first—we reserve the right to use nuclear weapons first in a conflict whether its CW [chemical weapons], BW [biological weapons] or for that matter conventional [weapons],” he said. Under the second scenario, Bell said the United States reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first "if a state is not a state in good standing under the Non-Proliferation Treaty or an equivalent international convention." Finally, he said if a state attacks the United States, its allies or its forces “in alliance” with a nuclear-capable state, then the United States reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first, even if that state is not a nuclear-capable state and is in good standing under the NPT. Because these three exceptions have existed for some time, Bell said “there is no policy change whatsoever in this PDD with respect to fundamental U.S. position on no first use of nuclear weapons.”

Posted: November 1, 1997

[HurricaneDitka]

@foolsguinea

If I understand HurricaneDitka’s point, it’s that supposedly Vladimir Putin, specifically, would be so contemptuous of a female head of government that he would be more likely to escalate against us with HRC in charge than with DJT in charge–even though DJT is a political naif, whose previous career involved furnishing luxury apartments for well-heeled New Yorkers.

This seems to be literally on the level of claiming that Isaac Mizrahi would make a better President of the USA than Samantha Power, because Putin is just that sexist, you guys. It deserves open scorn.

Not at all my point, but thanks for trying. It’s that he’d be more likely to escalate against us if we shoot down Russian jets than if we don’t.

[asahi]

@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.

Well for the record, I was never a huge fan of Hillary’s Russia policy and generally thought she was mediocre at the game of foreign policy at best – she owns the air strikes on Libya (though the Bengazi investigation was your usual right wing ape shittery).

Having said that, I seriously doubt that Hillary Clinton would have gone to the mat over Syria – for one thing Obama’s inaction and indecision early on gave Assad and Russia the upper hand, but then in all fairness there were no good options there. All of this goes back to Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in the first place. There’s nothing in Syria for either the US or Russia worth trading nukes over and there never will be. Clinton knows that and she’s not going to be goaded into a serious war to try to prove a point to Putin.

The problem we have now is that the status quo on NATO preserves American power regionally and globally, and Putin perceives that this power has been abused by American presidents going back to Bill Clinton, and having continued through Bush and Obama administrations. Trump’s nationalism might be advantageous to Putin in the short-run, and we might be on better terms with Russia. But Russia’s hardly the only nuclear threat. Moreover, by actively supporting a nationalist regime here, we’re only supporting more nationalism abroad. Nationalism in one country is to be expected from time to time; nationalism on a global scale is lethal.