# The Hillary Clinton Presidency of Doom **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 6, 2016, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hillary-clinton-presidency-of-doom/754035 "2016-05-06T00:01:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hillary-clinton-presidency-of-doom/754035/81 "2016-05-08T19:35:22Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > I think Hillary has health issues they are hiding. She seems to always be coughing and had a concussion last year. Probably means she needs to retire from the NFL. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hillary-clinton-presidency-of-doom/754035/82 "2016-05-08T19:46:01Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > …When people who oppose overseas military adventures castigate a politician for being a “hawk,” they mean that they believe the politician will send American troops into harm’s way for reasons having little to do with _actual_ national security: to secure and promote the financial interests of corporations (Exxon et al); to assuage wounded pride (a la W revenging himself on Saddam on behalf of his father); to beef up the profits of the “defense” industry… > [@Peremensoe](#): > > That is not generally what it means, in my experience. Okay, so … > [@Peremensoe](#): > > It means someone who is very ready, perhaps eager from a certain point of view, to reach for military action as a solution. That’s what _I_ said. > [@Peremensoe](#): > > The reasons may be good, bad, mixed, or unclear. Now you’re contradicting yourself. If the reasons for going to war are _good_, then you wouldn’t be using a pejorative, scornful label (in this case, “hawk”) about the politician who made the decision. For example, only the most ardent pacifists would label Franklin D. Roosevelt a “hawk” for having taken the USA into World War 2–most Americans consider his choice to go to war to have been the legitimate and correct one. > [@Peremensoe](#): > > This reflection following on the Landler piece calls Clinton’s hawk rep a “defining piece of conventional wisdom.” You may not be aware of this, but: ‘conventional wisdom’ is seldom used to mean ‘what is correct.’ Quite the opposite is the case, in fact. > [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State set the wheels in motion for dealing with Iran - an enemy - through diplomacy rather than force. > Based on the tremendous pushback from Republicans and Isreal (and a handful of Democrats who were against the treaty) this doesn’t happen with a Republican administration. > As a liberal, I am not fond of her Hawkish tendencies, however like her being cozier with Wall Street than I like, Republicans are as bad, if not worse, and she is way better on most other issues. I feel pretty much the same way. Clinton has _not_ earned the label “hawk” if one defines “hawk” as someone who is overly eager to go to war–as your example (her advocacy for diplomacy rather than force with Iran) illustrates. It’s just an old familiar smear. Of course, if anyone wants to define “hawk” as ‘a political figure who fails to advocate for the complete dismantling and closing down of the entire US military,’ then…okay. Such a definition would have to be made explicit, though, as it’s not the way most people use the term. And of course, under that particular definition, Bernie Sanders would be a hawk, too, as he has _not_ called for the dismantling and closure of US military institutions and capacity.) He’d like to see budget cuts, but he hasn’t said the whole thing should be shut down. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hillary-clinton-presidency-of-doom/754035/83 "2016-05-08T22:27:27Z")
Sherrerd, upthread you used a definition of “hawk” that is far narrower than the normal sense. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hillary-clinton-presidency-of-doom/754035/84 "2016-05-08T22:28:34Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > She’s observed just as I have that Democratic voters don’t care about foreign policy when a Democrat is in office. They are content to let Democratic Presidents do pretty much whatever. “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” Or were all those protestors Republicans and Communists? ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hillary-clinton-presidency-of-doom/754035/85 "2016-05-08T22:29:36Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Sherrerd, upthread you used a definition of “hawk” that is far narrower than the normal sense. So, what do you see as being the definition in the normal sense? Bear in mind that those who use “hawk” as a negative criticism, and those who use it as praise, probably define it quite differently. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hillary-clinton-presidency-of-doom/754035/86 "2016-05-09T02:33:09Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” > > Or were all those protestors Republicans and Communists? LBJ was an extreme case because Vietnam went on and on with tens of thousands of American deaths. CAusing thousands of deaths to foreigners though is fine for Democratic Presidents. We’ve had two straight Democratic Presidents bomb the living shit out of multiple countries and it affected their approval ratings among Democratic voters not one iota. One only has to look at the career of Glenn Greenwald to see this in action. Greenwald was a heroic blogger and journalist during the Bush years, now most liberals regard him as a crank. For the crime of consistency. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hillary-clinton-presidency-of-doom/754035/87 "2016-05-09T03:14:45Z")
This false equivalency kills me. It’s possible Democratic voters have less of a problem with Obama’s use of military force then they did with bush not because we’re being inconsistent about applying things. Unless Obama can be accused of starting wars based on cherry picked intelligence at best, or completely made up evidence at worst; unless he went to war in spite of what allies and the United Nations wanted; unless Joe Biden stood to gain billions because he owned Halliburton; unless he went for cheap photo apps in front of mission accomplished banners; unless he did all those things, why should Democrats be pissed again? Obama chose drones over boots on the ground. Obama did his best in dealing with destabilized regions, instead of destabilizing them. Obama negotiated with Iran over nukes instead of bombing them. Unless you’re Sarah Palin, you should know what the Bush Doctrine is. Compare that to the extremely long and detailed cover story in The Atlantic. I’m not some piece neck who feels all war is bad. There are bad people out there. There are people out there who would like to hurt us. Being cognizant of the fact past foreign policy errors has caused that doesn’t mitigate our responsibility in dealing with it. Overall I feel Obama’s foreign policy decisions are a lot better and kept us safer then they of the previous administration period. It isn’t because he’s a Democrat. It’s because his use of force has been demonstratively different than that of Bush. Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hillary-clinton-presidency-of-doom/754035/88 "2016-05-09T06:31:07Z")
If this was just about Bush, you’d have a point. The problem is that liberals also tended to be skeptical or hostile towards Reagan and Bush 41’s military actions as well. Only Nixon can go to China, only Democrats can wage war. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hillary-clinton-presidency-of-doom/754035/89 "2016-05-09T07:22:08Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If this was just about Bush, you’d have a point. The problem is that liberals also tended to be skeptical or hostile towards Reagan and Bush 41’s military actions as well. Only Nixon can go to China, only Democrats can wage war. What military actions did Reagan undertake, other than Grenada and a Libya bombing run? Not exactly what I’d call major engagements. 41’s war was a paragon of military intervention. It had a stated (and approved) goal, was well-planned and -executed, and was ended as soon as that goal was achieved. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hillary-clinton-presidency-of-doom/754035/90 "2016-05-09T09:48:31Z")
I was going to start a thread like this. The levels of hate for clinton and trump are about the same except with the parties flipped. So some might say it’s just partisanship. But the difference is, people hate trump for actual _reasons_; they can quote him. With Clinton, it’s much more nebulous. Ask what she’s supposedly done wrong and it’s either some CT nonsense, or some dull technicality spun out to be the lie of the century. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hillary-clinton-presidency-of-doom/754035/91 "2016-05-09T11:13:40Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > What military actions did Reagan undertake, other than Grenada and a Libya bombing run? Not exactly what I’d call major engagements. > > 41’s war was a paragon of military intervention. It had a stated (and approved) goal, was well-planned and -executed, and was ended as soon as that goal was achieved. And it was still a problem for Democrats, as was Grenada, and in general Reagan was considered a “warmonger” before he even started any wars. This idea that Democrats are only against dumb wars is revisionist history. Democrats are against Republican wars, have been ever since Reagan. Heck, Democrats are against harsh language if it comes from a Republican. They aren’t a fan of bloodless coups that topple hostile dictators either. At least when Republicans direct them. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hillary-clinton-presidency-of-doom/754035/92 "2016-05-09T11:33:21Z")
Sounds like confirmation bias to me. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hillary-clinton-presidency-of-doom/754035/93 "2016-05-09T11:40:28Z")
No, Democrats just don’t care about foreign policy. They care about domestic policy and getting Republicans out of the White House. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hillary-clinton-presidency-of-doom/754035/94 "2016-05-09T11:40:55Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > This idea that Democrats are only against dumb wars is revisionist history. Democrats are against Republican wars I fail to see the difference… ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hillary-clinton-presidency-of-doom/754035/95 "2016-05-09T12:40:01Z")
I knew one of the guys I golfed with yesterday is quite conservative, so I asked him what he thought about Trump. His response, “I like him.” Becaue “He’s a businessman.” Turning to criticize Clinton he said she’d appoint a liberal SCt justice who would lead to taking away Americans’ guns. I didn’t want to turn this into a big argument, so I didn’t press, but I got the impression he thought an effort to curtail gun rights would lead to considerable armed unrest. Then he followed up with, “Don’t you want our country to have borders?” When I asked what he thought Trump’s chances of being elected were, he said “50/50 right now, but who knows what will happen after the FBI weighs in…” This guy is in his 70s, a retired CFO for a smallish company. Lives a very middle class existence. Catholic. Very financially astute. I had not known him to be especially prejudiced in the 20+ years I’ve known him. I was hesitant to raise the topic, but we have all known each other for decades, gone on golf trips, played poker, and talked about just about everything over the years. I knew his perspective differed from mine, and I respect him as an overall intelligent person, so I was interested in obtaining insight into how others think. But I was amazed at how strongly he supported Trump, and how weak his arguments were. Just one datapoint. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hillary-clinton-presidency-of-doom/754035/96 "2016-05-09T13:02:35Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > This idea that Democrats are only against dumb wars is revisionist history. Democrats are against Republican wars, have been ever since Reagan. Heck, Democrats are against harsh language if it comes from a Republican. They aren’t a fan of bloodless coups that topple hostile dictators either. At least when Republicans direct them. Care to provide examples of wars started by Republicans that were not dumb and were opposed by Democrats? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hillary-clinton-presidency-of-doom/754035/97 "2016-05-09T13:22:37Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > No, Democrats just don’t care about foreign policy. They care about domestic policy and getting Republicans out of the White House. Do you consider trade and climate treaties foreign policy? Aid programs? Seems like you using foreign policy=military intervention policy. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hillary-clinton-presidency-of-doom/754035/98 "2016-05-09T13:46:23Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > This idea that Democrats are only against dumb wars is revisionist history. Democrats are against Republican wars, have been ever since Reagan. Heck, Democrats are against harsh language if it comes from a Republican. They aren’t a fan of bloodless coups that topple hostile dictators either. At least when Republicans direct them. Why do you say these things when you’re only going to end up being embarrassed by them? Did Democrats oppose the Kuwait War when Bush I was President? No, because that was a war being fought for a clear necessary cause. The Democrats supported Bush and the war. Did Democrats oppose the invasion of Afghanistan when Bush II was President? Again, no, they supported a Republican President because he was fighting a necessary war. There was later opposition to Bush over Afghanistan but that was because the war was being fought poorly not because of the war itself. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hillary-clinton-presidency-of-doom/754035/99 "2016-05-09T14:22:44Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Why do you say these things when you’re only going to end up being embarrassed by them? > > Did Democrats oppose the Kuwait War when Bush I was President? No, because that was a war being fought for a clear necessary cause. The Democrats supported Bush and the war. > > Did Democrats oppose the invasion of Afghanistan when Bush II was President? Again, no, they supported a Republican President because he was fighting a necessary war. There was later opposition to Bush over Afghanistan but that was because the war was being fought poorly not because of the war itself. Actually, they didn’t support Gulf War I. They voted 45-10 against in the Senate and 179-86 against in the House. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization\_for\_Use\_of\_Military\_Force\_Against\_Iraq\_Resolution\_of\_1991](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_1991) ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hillary-clinton-presidency-of-doom/754035/100 "2016-05-09T14:31:06Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > And it was still a problem for Democrats, as was Grenada, and in general Reagan was considered a “warmonger” before he even started any wars. > > This idea that Democrats are only against dumb wars is revisionist history. Democrats are against Republican wars, have been ever since Reagan. Heck, Democrats are against harsh language if it comes from a Republican. They aren’t a fan of bloodless coups that topple hostile dictators either. At least when Republicans direct them. The warmonger thing was more than just Democrats. It’s no coincidence that the Iran hostages were released on Reagan’s first Inauguration Day. Where did I ever say anything about Democrats’ attitudes toward war? (Just to make it clear again, I am pointedly _not_ a Democrat, nor a Republican, though I could easily be accused of having some liberal leanings. However, I could be equally accused of having some conservative leanings.) I don’t care about dogma, I care about facts. My post was mostly in support of your point, not an argument against. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hillary-clinton-presidency-of-doom/754035.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hillary-clinton-presidency-of-doom/754035.md?page=6)