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.
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”.
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”.
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.
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”.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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:
BTW that was from last year.
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.
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.
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.
You decide to place current campaign calculations above real policy decisions in your analysis. That’s fine, but I do not.
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.
Obama is more peaceful than Clinton.
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.
Can we be a little less patronizing?
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.
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.
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.
Reluctantly, choosing to end his statement by playing up building at home.
For varying definitions of the word “pronounced”, maybe. He is still more hawkish than Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton.
So maybe someone who does not draw from purchased think-tanks or academia would be less hawkish than one who does?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
