# Trump: Peace Candidate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 11, 2016, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611 "2016-03-11T02:31:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/61 "2016-03-13T01:36:11Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > You miss the point entirely. Clinton labelled black youths as “super predators”. Her solution was mass incarceration. Again, you may be more threatened by some hick in Podunk Arizona, but there are many more people than you and your family who are terrorized by Clinton’s policies in major cities across America. Wrong and ignorant once again. You are can not really let go, I was not talking about the criminal elements, in fact many minorities do agree with taking care of criminal elements, regardless if some of them are minorities. Many Hispanics ended supporting Bill Clinton and you are only propping up what amounts to a Red Herring. > **[Hillary Clinton Has Deep History With Latinos And There's Not A Lot The GOP...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/adriancarrasquillo/hillary-clinton-has-deep-history-with-latinos-and-theres-not)** > > A forgotten detail about 2008: Hillary Clinton beat Obama 2–1 among Latinos in their primary and it wasn't all name recognition — but big challenges still lie ahead to maintain huge Latino support for Democrats. One other one: the looming possibility... > [@](#): > > And you need to be aware that I voted twice for Clinton, and I will be glad to vote for the other one twice to if it is needed because it is not only for arresting criminals that we are judging her. > > Hillary Clinton Has Deep History With Latinos And There’s Not A Lot The GOP Can Do About It > > A forgotten detail about 2008: Hillary Clinton beat Obama 2–1 among Latinos in their primary and it wasn’t all name recognition > [@](#): > > Democrats say it was these kinds of connections and endorsements, and not just name recognition against the ascendant but unknown Obama, that helped Clinton with Latinos in 2008. Her deep network of influential local and state leaders included former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who crisscrossed California for her, and Henry Cisneros from Texas, a longtime Latino leader who served in Bill Clinton’s cabinet. > > They also say Latinos did well during her husband’s presidency. > > “Latinos fondly remember the Clinton years from an economic perspective,” said Democratic strategist Jose Parra, who worked for Harry Reid. “Older folks have prosperous memories from the Clinton terms.” > > “Rarely have Hispanics prospered economically like they did under the Clinton administration, which transferred goodwill and good feelings,” Democratic pollster Fernand Amandi said, noting that 2008 was the first year the Hispanic vote was competed for in a major way. > > Michael Trujillo, a field director for Clinton in North Carolina, California, and Texas in 2008, who now serves as a senior adviser to Ready for Hillary, said a nostalgia effect exists for some Latino voters when it comes to the Clintons because in 1992 and particularly in 1996, recipients of Ronald Reagan’s amnesty that allowed more than 3 million undocumented immigrants to stay in the country legally, were able to cast their first votes — and they did so for Bill Clinton. So yeah, keep in mind that even you are not supporting Arpaio on his racial profiling that did affect even citizens, so why do carry water for Trump? You need to demand that he explain why he has not repudiated Arpaio and many others that should be “people that one not should be involved with”. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/62 "2016-03-13T01:44:06Z")
Just to be clear, whom do you mean by “Clinton”? Because you never use a first name, and yet, in parts of your post, you refer to things Clinton has already done, and in others, you use the pronoun “her”. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/63 "2016-03-13T02:11:40Z")
Ok, I made a mess with the quotes. Take two: Wrong and ignorant once again **WillFarnaby**. You can not really let go of the red herring, I was not talking about the criminal elements, in fact many minorities do agree with taking care of criminal elements, regardless if some of them are minorities. Many Hispanics ended supporting Bill Clinton in the past and it looks like most of your attacks to Hillary Clinton lack context. > **[Hillary Clinton Has Deep History With Latinos And There's Not A Lot The GOP...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/adriancarrasquillo/hillary-clinton-has-deep-history-with-latinos-and-theres-not)** > > A forgotten detail about 2008: Hillary Clinton beat Obama 2–1 among Latinos in their primary and it wasn't all name recognition — but big challenges still lie ahead to maintain huge Latino support for Democrats. One other one: the looming possibility... > [@](#): > > Hillary Clinton Has Deep History With Latinos And There’s Not A Lot The GOP Can Do About It > > A forgotten detail about 2008: Hillary Clinton beat Obama 2–1 among Latinos in their primary and it wasn’t all name recognition > [@](#): > > Democrats say it was these kinds of connections and endorsements, and not just name recognition against the ascendant but unknown Obama, that helped Clinton with Latinos in 2008. Her deep network of influential local and state leaders included former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who crisscrossed California for her, and Henry Cisneros from Texas, a longtime Latino leader who served in Bill Clinton’s cabinet. > > They also say Latinos did well during her husband’s presidency. > > “Latinos fondly remember the Clinton years from an economic perspective,” said Democratic strategist Jose Parra, who worked for Harry Reid. “Older folks have prosperous memories from the Clinton terms.” > > “Rarely have Hispanics prospered economically like they did under the Clinton administration, which transferred goodwill and good feelings,” Democratic pollster Fernand Amandi said, noting that 2008 was the first year the Hispanic vote was competed for in a major way. > > Michael Trujillo, a field director for Clinton in North Carolina, California, and Texas in 2008, who now serves as a senior adviser to Ready for Hillary, said a nostalgia effect exists for some Latino voters when it comes to the Clintons because in 1992 and particularly in 1996, recipients of Ronald Reagan’s amnesty that allowed more than 3 million undocumented immigrants to stay in the country legally, were able to cast their first votes — and they did so for Bill Clinton. So yeah, keep in mind that even you are not supporting Arpaio on his racial profiling that did affect citizens, so why do you need to carry water for Trump? You need to demand to him to explain why he has not repudiated Arpaio and many others that should be “people that one not should be involved with”. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/64 "2016-03-13T03:06:59Z")
I admire the patience of Dopers. Don’t you know that debating a Bundyite is like going down the rabbit-hole in Alice in Wonderland? (Freemen On The Land are harmless morons; and Milton Friedman was proud to call himself a Libertarian. So I’m adopting the term “Bundyite” for the modern-day extremists proposing the abolition of all government.) > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > … Clinton, whose entire life has been using physical violence by wielding the instrument of state. Wow. I guess it sseems to some that to take any tax-funded job, or even to work for a tax-exempt non-profit, is to commit violence vicariously. :eek: The IRS collects its taxes with jack-booted SWAT teams, backed by the full power of the U.S.’ nuclear arsenal. (Thousands killed in Bhopal by Union Carbide, OTOH, is the benevolent work of Job Creators: an optimal solution arranged courtesy of free market principles.) > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > and also Trump is the only person probably in the world (probably apart from Chinese leadership at the time) that seems to have sided with the tanks in Tiananmen Square. > > Google “Waco” if you think Clinton is any different. :rolleyes: As you’re falling down the rabbit-hole, take time to savor this comparison. The Waco tragedy, which had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton anyway, was caused by law-breaking pederasts and murderers, whose only politics was “Bundyism.” Investigation showed that it was these Bundyites who deliberately set the fire that took their own lives. **Bravo!! But why is this in _Elections_ instead of _Performance Art_?** ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/65 "2016-03-13T03:26:02Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Ok, I made a mess with the quotes. > > Take two: > > Wrong and ignorant once again **WillFarnaby**. > > You can not really let go of the red herring, I was not talking about the criminal elements, in fact many minorities do agree with taking care of criminal elements, regardless if some of them are minorities. Many Hispanics ended supporting Bill Clinton in the past and it looks like most of your attacks to Hillary Clinton lack context. > > [Hillary Clinton Has Deep History With Latinos And There's Not A Lot The GOP Can Do About It](http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/hillary-clinton-has-deep-history-with-latinos-and-theres-not) > > So yeah, keep in mind that even you are not supporting Arpaio on his racial profiling that did affect citizens, so why do you need to carry water for Trump? You need to demand to him to explain why he has not repudiated Arpaio and many others that should be “people that one not should be involved with”. Ok so you defend mass incarceration, I don’t want to get into the weeds on that one, suffice it to say, I disagree. There are a lot of people involved with Trump that scare me, but he still shows a greater chance of pursuing a policy of deescalation than Hillary Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/66 "2016-03-13T03:33:53Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I admire the patience of Dopers. Don’t you know that debating a Bundyite is like going down the rabbit-hole in Alice in Wonderland? (Freemen On The Land are harmless morons; and Milton Friedman was proud to call himself a Libertarian. So I’m adopting the term “Bundyite” for the modern-day extremists proposing the abolition of all government.) > > Wow. I guess it sseems to some that to take any tax-funded job, or even to work for a tax-exempt non-profit, is to commit violence vicariously. :eek: The IRS collects its taxes with jack-booted SWAT teams, backed by the full power of the U.S.’ nuclear arsenal. > > (Thousands killed in Bhopal by Union Carbide, OTOH, is the benevolent work of Job Creators: an optimal solution arranged courtesy of free market principles.) > > :rolleyes: As you’re falling down the rabbit-hole, take time to savor this comparison. The Waco tragedy, which had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton anyway, was caused by law-breaking pederasts and murderers, whose only politics was “Bundyism.” Investigation showed that it was these Bundyites who deliberately set the fire that took their own lives. > **Bravo!! But why is this in _Elections_ instead of _Performance Art_?** I won’t address your seemingly drug-addled ravings, but I will say I have no problem with tax-exempt anything. In fact that is the goal. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/67 "2016-03-13T04:01:33Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Trump: Listen to the generals. Send in the troops, knock them out, then bring them home. (How many generals would seriously think this would be a quick operation?) > [INDENT] We really have no choice…I would listen to the generals, but I’m hearing numbers of 20,000 to 30,000. We have to knock them out fast. And we have to get back home. And we have to rebuild our country which is falling apart. > [/INDENT] > > [Republicans Tonight: Let’s Invade Iraq All Over Again – Mother Jones](http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/republicans-tonight-lets-invade-iraq-again) Unsurprisingly experts have no idea what Trump is talking about when he calls for 20,000 to 30,000 ground troops. He was just making things up: “I know of no active-duty or recently retired military officers who fought in Iraq or Syria who would say this was a good idea,” said Mark P. Hertling, a retired three-star general who commanded 30,000 American troops in northern Iraq. “I’m not sure where any of those numbers are coming from. None of them are based on what we call troop-to-task analysis.” General Hertling said the United States might have to deploy additional resources to Iraq when the Iraqi military prepared to retake the country’s second-largest city, Mosul, from the Islamic State. But under the plans being prepared by the Pentagon, that would consist of advisers to help collect and analyze intelligence or to pilot drones, not ground troops. “We can’t put ground forces in to fight this,” he said, “or we’re going to get bogged down.” Trump is more hawkish than most generals - not surprising for a nationalist. His campaign refused to respond to requests from the New York Times for clarification. [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/12/us/politics/trump-urges-party-to-unite-behind-him-but-resistance-remains.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/12/us/politics/trump-urges-party-to-unite-behind-him-but-resistance-remains.html) > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Clinton calls for a no-fly zone. General Dempsey has stated it would take 70,000 servicemen to pull that off. “No-Fly Zone” is the dog whistle for the neocons. It sounds harmless enough until you actually dig past the New York Times type analysis. … > > Again, Clinton’s position of imposing a No-Fly Zone, besides the problem it would cause with Russia, would require 70,000 servicemen. I’m going to need a cite for that. Also, the New York Times digs deeper than pretty much any newspaper in the country. Academic work and professional specialist publications of course are more granular. Anyway here is discussion of Dempsey’s 2013 testimony. I’ve only skimmed it, but I find it difficult to back your assessment. [http://csis.org/publication/us-options-syria-dempsey-letter](http://csis.org/publication/us-options-syria-dempsey-letter) [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-22/dempsey-says-syria-no-fly-zone-could-cost-1-billion-a-month](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-22/dempsey-says-syria-no-fly-zone-could-cost-1-billion-a-month) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/68 "2016-03-13T04:06:12Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Ok so you defend mass incarceration, I don’t want to get into the weeds on that one, suffice it to say, I disagree. I also disagree, I was concentrating on the criminal elements, not the immigrants, again, you only did try to sell a red herring. And also you are not keeping with the news, times have changed and so it was the crime rate: > **[Hillary Clinton Calls for an End to ‘Mass Incarceration’](https://time.com/3839892/hillary-clinton-calls-for-an-end-to-mass-incarceration/)** > > Clinton called for broad criminal justice reform in a speech on Wednesday but offered few specific solutions. > [@](#): > > Hillary Clinton Calls for an End to ‘Mass Incarceration’ **BTW that was from last year.** > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > There are a lot of people involved with Trump that scare me, but he still shows a greater chance of pursuing a policy of deescalation than Hillary Clinton. And here you show how ignorant you remain. Trump is the one that has proposed to remake operation wetback. Truly what mass incarceration is defined with and it killed several people. > **[It Came Up In The Debate: Here Are 3 Things To Know About 'Operation Wetback'](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/11/455613993/it-came-up-in-the-debate-here-are-3-things-to-know-about-operation-wetback)** > > Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump pointed to the Eisenhower-era program that deported masses of Latino immigrants. But the program was deadly and controversial. > [@](#): > > In her book Impossible Subjects, Mae Ngai writes that many Mexicans were deported by ship. A congressional investigation, according to the book, compared the conditions on the ship to that of an “eighteenth century slave ship.” > > In another case, immigration authorities dumped hundreds of thousands of braceros across the border. She continues: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > "Some 88 braceros died of sun stroke as a result of a round-up that had taken place in 112-degree heat, and [an American labor official] argued that more would have died had Red Cross not intervened. At the other end of the border, in Nuevo Laredo, a Mexican labor leader reported that 'wetbacks' were 'brought [into Mexico] like cows' on trucks and unloaded fifteen miles down the highway from the border, in the desert." > > > > ``` > > Citing immigration documents, [FactCheck.org](http://FactCheck.org) reports that Operation Wetback lasted a few months. Officials stopped shipping out Mexicans after “some drownings caused a public outcry in Mexico.” ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/69 "2016-03-13T04:26:42Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Unsurprisingly experts have no idea what Trump is talking about when he calls for 20,000 to 30,000 ground troops. He was just making things up: “I know of no active-duty or recently retired military officers who fought in Iraq or Syria who would say this was a good idea,” said Mark P. Hertling, a retired three-star general who commanded 30,000 American troops in northern Iraq. “I’m not sure where any of those numbers are coming from. None of them are based on what we call troop-to-task analysis.” > > General Hertling said the United States might have to deploy additional resources to Iraq when the Iraqi military prepared to retake the country’s second-largest city, Mosul, from the Islamic State. But under the plans being prepared by the Pentagon, that would consist of advisers to help collect and analyze intelligence or to pilot drones, not ground troops. > > “We can’t put ground forces in to fight this,” he said, “or we’re going to get bogged down.” Trump is more hawkish than most generals - not surprising for a nationalist. His campaign refused to respond to requests from the New York Times for clarification. > [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/12/us/politics/trump-urges-party-to-unite-behind-him-but-resistance-remains.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/12/us/politics/trump-urges-party-to-unite-behind-him-but-resistance-remains.html) I’m going to need a cite for that. Also, the New York Times digs deeper than pretty much any newspaper in the country. Academic work and professional specialist publications of course are more granular. > > Anyway here is discussion of Dempsey’s 2013 testimony. I’ve only skimmed it, but I find it difficult to back your assessment. > [US Options in Syria: The Dempsey Letter](http://csis.org/publication/us-options-syria-dempsey-letter) > [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-22/dempsey-says-syria-no-fly-zone-could-cost-1-billion-a-month](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-22/dempsey-says-syria-no-fly-zone-could-cost-1-billion-a-month) If you can sort out the outright war propaganda you could be right, but that’s quite a task. [http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/10/23/world/middleeast/obamas-uncertain-path-amid-syria-bloodshed.html](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/10/23/world/middleeast/obamas-uncertain-path-amid-syria-bloodshed.html)? Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave a slide-show presentation in the Situation Room in early 2012 that helped take any military option off the table. Imposing a no-fly zone, he said, would require as many as 70,000 American servicemen to dismantle Syria’s sophisticated antiaircraft system and then impose a 24-hour watch over the country. So Clinton is not only more hawkish than the spitballing Trump, she is more hawkish than “the generals” and on par with Marco Rubio! ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/70 "2016-03-13T04:38:22Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > If you can sort out the outright war propaganda you could be right, but that’s quite a task. > > [http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/10/23/world/middleeast/obamas-uncertain-path-amid-syria-bloodshed.html](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/10/23/world/middleeast/obamas-uncertain-path-amid-syria-bloodshed.html)? > > Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave a slide-show presentation in the Situation Room in early 2012 that helped take any military option off the table. Imposing a no-fly zone, he said, would require as many as 70,000 American servicemen to dismantle Syria’s sophisticated antiaircraft system and then impose a 24-hour watch over the country. > > So Clinton is not only more hawkish than the spitballing Trump, she is more hawkish than “the generals” and on par with Marco Rubio! Not sure about that, with that info, the Obama cabinet then decided not to press for a no-fly zone. Remember the changing times and conditions? It looks like you are also not aware that a lot has changed in the field from then. Clinton actually called for only an area of Syria to be under a no-fly zone and with more coalition planes; so, not only American ones. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/71 "2016-03-13T05:18:37Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > [http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/10/23/world/middleeast/obamas-uncertain-path-amid-syria-bloodshed.html](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/10/23/world/middleeast/obamas-uncertain-path-amid-syria-bloodshed.html)? > > Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave a slide-show presentation in the Situation Room in early 2012 that helped take any military option off the table. Imposing a no-fly zone, he said, would require as many as 70,000 American servicemen to dismantle Syria’s sophisticated antiaircraft system and then impose a 24-hour watch over the country. Thank you for the real citation. We request cites on this message board not merely as a game of gotcha, but so we can inspect and understand claims. Presumably there are a number of ways of conducting a no-fly zone. The one considered in early 2012 apparently (and frankly to my surprise) required 70,000 US troops. Now it didn’t sound like those would be ground troops. But still. But HR Clinton was Secretary of State at that time (she resigned in early 2013). And there’s no evidence that she signed up or supported in any way that particular plan or even one like it. (She did push to arm and train Syrian rebels.) So the idea that she advocates the use of 70,000 troops is a stretch. And frankly 70,000 support troops counts a lot less for me than 20,000 - 30,000 ground troops in house to house fighting. Which is what Trump was advocating. I tend to agree though that Rubio is more of a hawk. His national security team is led by Elliot Abrams of Iran-Contra: homeland security is headed by Michael Chertoff, co-author of the Patriot Act and Hurricane Katrina incompetent. Honestly? I like Obama. He is the only recent President to have pushed back on the National Security establishment in a pronounced manner. The fact is that peaceniks simply don’t have a lot of intellectual firepower. That’s not an insult. It’s an observation that they lack representation and funding in academia as well as in the think tanks. Brookings for example if fairly hawkish. So implementing a truely peaceful foreign policy in the US is hard and to a great extent impractical at present. Admittedly, we could cut the military a lot: CDI (or whatever their latest incarnation is) would help there. ---
**Author:** ![GulfTiger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e79b87/32.png) [@GulfTiger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GulfTiger)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/72 "2016-03-13T14:54:58Z")
Everyone knows that to win the Nobel prize you must continue to make war and drone people. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/73 "2016-03-13T18:54:39Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I also disagree, I was concentrating on the criminal elements, not the immigrants, again, you only did try to sell a red herring. And also you are not keeping with the news, times have changed and so it was the crime rate: > > [Hillary Clinton Calls for Justice Reform and Police Body Cameras | TIME](http://time.com/3839892/hillary-clinton-calls-for-an-end-to-mass-incarceration/) > **BTW that was from last year.** You decide to place current campaign calculations above real policy decisions in your analysis. That’s fine, but I do not. > [@](#): > > And here you show how ignorant you remain. Trump is the one that has proposed to remake operation wetback. Truly what mass incarceration is defined with and it killed several people. > > [It Came Up In The Debate: Here Are 3 Things To Know About 'Operation Wetback' : The Two-Way : NPR](http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/11/455613993/it-came-up-in-the-debate-here-are-3-things-to-know-about-operation-wetback) Yes Trump’s plan is terrible. It will never happen. Clinton’s evil inclination to bomb people thousands of miles away will be met with little to no resistance at home. Trump will be unable to carry out his plan as stated. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not sure about that, with that info, the Obama cabinet then decided not to press for a no-fly zone. Obama is more peaceful than Clinton. > [@](#): > > Remember the changing times and conditions? It looks like you are also not aware that a lot has changed in the field from then. Ok Hemingway. Now is the time for you to point to specifics of Hillary’s plan that explain that much less than the 70,000 figure will be needed for her adventure. Now is not the time to throw things at the wall to see if they will stick… > [@](#): > > Clinton actually called for only an area of Syria to be under a no-fly zone and with more coalition planes; so, not only American ones. Too late. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Thank you for the real citation. We request cites on this message board not merely as a game of gotcha, but so we can inspect and understand claims. Can we be a little less patronizing? > [@](#): > > Presumably there are a number of ways of conducting a no-fly zone. Ok so it is Clinton’s and her supporters job to explain the specifics of her plan. Until then, the 70,000 figure is the only figure offered by either side, and it is entirely plausible that any Clinton plan will require numbers similar to that. You don’t just get to poopoo things because they don’t appeal to you. It is just as plausible that a Clinton plan would require more than the 70,000 troops. > [@](#): > > The one considered in early 2012 apparently (and frankly to my surprise) required 70,000 US troops. Now it didn’t sound like those would be ground troops. But still. > > But HR Clinton was Secretary of State at that time (she resigned in early 2013). And there’s no evidence that she signed up or supported in any way that particular plan or even one like it. (She did push to arm and train Syrian rebels.) It’s likely that if she advocates for a no-fly zone now, when it is an even worse idea than it was then, she would have supported a plan similar to that at the time. > [@](#): > > So the idea that she advocates the use of 70,000 troops is a stretch. No more a stretch than the idea she advocates for less than 70,000 troops. Remember there are political implications of what she says, because she is running for the Democratic and not Republican nomination, that people like **John Mace** pretend do not exist. > [@](#): > > And frankly 70,000 support troops counts a lot less for me than 20,000 - 30,000 ground troops in house to house fighting. Which is what Trump was advocating. Reluctantly, choosing to end his statement by playing up building at home. > [@](#): > > I tend to agree though that Rubio is more of a hawk. His national security team is led by Elliot Abrams of Iran-Contra: homeland security is headed by Michael Chertoff, co-author of the Patriot Act and Hurricane Katrina incompetent. > **[Clinton, Rubio, Cruz Receive Foreign Policy Advice From Same Consulting Firm](https://theintercept.com/2015/12/18/beacon-global-strategies/)** > > Consultants affiliated with Beacon Global Strategies provide high-profile foreign policy guidance to Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. > [@](#): > > Honestly? I like Obama. He is the only recent President to have pushed back on the National Security establishment in a pronounced manner. For varying definitions of the word “pronounced”, maybe. He is still more hawkish than Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton. > [@](#): > > The fact is that peaceniks simply don’t have a lot of intellectual firepower. That’s not an insult. It’s an observation that they lack representation and funding in academia as well as in the think tanks. Brookings for example if fairly hawkish. So maybe someone who does not draw from purchased think-tanks or academia would be less hawkish than one who does? > [@](#): > > So implementing a truely peaceful foreign policy in the US is hard and to a great extent impractical at present. It’s impractical because there aren’t enough pro-peace think tanks? That’s why you may have to circumvent established channels of advice and pull from the sometimes solid predisposition for peace in the populace. Y’know, like a populist would do? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/74 "2016-03-13T19:27:32Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > You decide to place current campaign calculations above real policy decisions in your analysis. That’s fine, but I do not. That is just a sad position to have as it only leads to not looking to new evidence or change of opinion. No wonder you ignore what Trump is telling us about real mass incarceration and the changes that not only Clinton but many democrats are proposing now. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Yes Trump’s plan is terrible. It will never happen. Clinton’s evil inclination to bomb people thousands of miles away will be met with little to no resistance at home. Trump will be unable to carry out his plan as stated. That is just the same as saying “Clinton’s plan is terrible, it never will happen” The reality is that executive power does exist and Presidents can order actions like Operation Wetback, as Eisenhower showed. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Ok Hemingway. Now is the time for you to point to specifics of Hillary’s plan that explain that much less than the 70,000 figure will be needed for her adventure. Now is not the time to throw things at the wall to see if they will stick… > > Too late. Too late for what? If you are putting limits to Trump it is really silly to ignore the limits Hillary Clinton will have. And as it was already pointed out you are looking at an old plan covering a larger area and was not counting on coalition forces that was looked by the Obama administration. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Can we be a little less patronizing? Too late, 😉 You already showed that you are really just using arguments from ignorance, and what is worse is that you are of the idea that any reassessment or change of plans should never be taken into account or never used. And it the evidence points to you willfully ignoring what Clinton actually said about her plan. > **[Read Hillary Clinton's Speech on Fighting ISIS](https://time.com/4120295/hillary-clinton-foreign-policy-isis/)** > > Here's a full transcript. What this shows to all is that your implication that we were just tossing words tossed to a wall was not accurate. > [@](#): > > Our increased support should go hand in hand with increased support from our Arab and European partners, including special forces who can contribute to the fight on the ground. We should also work with the coalition and the neighbors to impose no-fly zones that will stop Assad from slaughtering civilians and the opposition from the air. Opposition forces on the ground, with material support from the coalition, could then help create safe areas where Syrians could remain in the country, rather than fleeing toward Europe. > > This combined approach would help enable the opposition to retake the remaining stretch of the Turkish border from ISIS, choking off its supply lines. It would also give us new leverage in the diplomatic process that Secretary Kerry is pursuing. > > Of course, we’ve been down plenty of diplomatic dead- ends before in this conflict. But we have models for how seemingly intractable multi-sectarian civil wars do eventually end. We can learn lessons from Lebanon and Bosnia about what it will take. And Russia and Iran have to face the fact that continuing to prop up a vicious dictator will not bring stability. > > Right now, I’m afraid, President Putin is actually making things somewhat worse. > [@](#): > > QUESTION: When you were secretary of state, you tended to agree a great deal with the then-Secretary of Defense Bob Gates. Gates was opposed to a no-fly zone in Syria; thought it was an act of war that was risky and dangerous. This seems to me the major difference right now between what the president — what Obama’s administration is doing and what you’re proposing. > > Do you not — why do you disagree with Bob Gates on this? > > CLINTON: Well, I — I believe that the no-fly zone is merited and can be implemented, again, in a coalition, not an American-only no-fly zone. I fully respect Bob and his knowledge about the difficulties of implementing a no-fly zone. But if you look at where we are right now, we have to try to clear the air of the bombing attacks that are still being carried out to a limited extent by the Syrian military, now supplemented by the Russian air force. > > \*\*And I think we have a chance to do that now. We have a no-fly zone over northern Iraq for years to protect the Kurds. And it proved to be successful, not easy — it never is — but I think now is the time for us to revisit those plans. > \*\* > I also believe, as I said in the speech, that if we begin the conversation about a no-fly zone, something that, you know, Turkey discussed with me back when I was secretary of state in 2012, it will confront a lot of our partners in the region and beyond about what they’re going to do. And it can give us leverage in the discussions that Secretary Kerry is carrying on right now. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/75 "2016-03-13T19:48:25Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Glossing over that whole “we’re going to kill the families of terrorists” quote, eh? Ignoring things like this too. tweeting… \*Bernie Sanders is lying when he says his disruptors aren’t told to go to my events. Be careful Bernie, or my supporters will go to yours! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 13, 2016\* Threatening Bernie with political protesters at his events. ( I dunno, I’m not against this I guess) ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/76 "2016-03-13T19:57:06Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is just a sad position to have as it only leads to not looking to new evidence or change of opinion. No wonder you ignore what Trump is telling us about real mass incarceration and the changes that not only Clinton but many democrats are proposing now. > That is just the same as saying “Clinton’s plan is terrible, it never will happen” > > The reality is that executive power does exist and Presidents can order actions like Operation Wetback, as Eisenhower showed. > Too late for what? If you are putting limits to Trump it is really silly to ignore the limits Hillary Clinton will have. And as it was already pointed out you are looking at an old plan covering a larger area and was not counting on coalition forces that was looked by the Obama administration. > Too late, 😉 > > You already showed that you are really just using arguments from ignorance, and what is worse is that you are of the idea that any reassessment or change of plans should never be taken into account or never used. > > And it the evidence points to you willfully ignoring what Clinton actually said about her plan. > > [Read Hillary Clinton's Speech on Fighting ISIS | TIME](http://time.com/4120295/hillary-clinton-foreign-policy-isis/) > > What this shows to all is that your implication that we were just tossing words tossed to a wall was not accurate. Ok still no details. A lot of hemming and hawing about what “needs” to be done, but nowhere does Clinton say she will need less than 70,000 troops. I will stick with the 70,000 figure because there have been no alternatives offered by you or Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/77 "2016-03-13T20:01:24Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Ignoring things like this too. > > tweeting… > \*Bernie Sanders is lying when he says his disruptors aren’t told to go to my events. Be careful Bernie, or my supporters will go to yours! > > — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 13, 2016\* > > Threatening Bernie with political protesters at his events. ( I dunno, I’m not against this I guess) I would be worried if Trump supported a paramilitary armed encampment at Sander’s rallies similar to the one Clinton supported in the Maidan that precipitated the Ukrainian coup. I’m not worried about Trump supporters protesting at Sander’s rallies however. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/78 "2016-03-13T20:01:58Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > … Clinton, whose entire life has been using physical violence by wielding the instrument of state. > … Clinton, who has among her credentials, the mass incarceration of American Blacks and the destruction of families. > … Google “Waco” if you think Clinton is any different. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I won’t address your seemingly drug-addled ravings … The irony here is precious. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/79 "2016-03-13T20:05:17Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Ok still no details. A lot of hemming and hawing about what “needs” to be done, but nowhere does Clinton say she will need less than 70,000 troops Neither she or anyone else was using that figure that was used for a no fly zone with unilateral use of our air force. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I will stick with the 70,000 figure because there have been no alternatives offered by you or Clinton. And that remains an ignorant argument, because once again, **you are relying on numbers for a plan that was not implemented** , logic tell us that since the 70,000 figure was applied to a no fly zone for more of Syria and Iraq and by using just the US air force and support means that what Clinton proposed means that less of that figure will be needed. And as pointed before, it may not happen at all. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/80 "2016-03-13T21:32:55Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Neither she or anyone else was using that figure that was used for a no fly zone with unilateral use of our air force. > And that remains an ignorant argument, because once again, **you are relying on numbers for a plan that was not implemented** , logic tell us that since the 70,000 figure was applied to a no fly zone for more of Syria and Iraq and by using just the US air force and support means that what Clinton proposed means that less of that figure will be needed. And as pointed before, it may not happen at all. Since you have no credentials that I’m aware of, I will just stick to what has been published in lieu of anything contradictory. Clinton is apparently not willing to go on the record with what her plan will require. There is a reason for that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611.md?page=5)