If long occupations inspire more terrorists, then they certainly are safer.
You say things like this that are totally counterfactual. Invading and occupying really are much, much more aggressive, and in the case of the Iraq war, unilateral, then anything Obama has done.
What inspires more terrorists is a hard question to answer. Victory sure helps. Occupation definitely draws a crowd of terrorists. Bombings probably help a lot too.
Name our allies in the bombing of the six countries we’ve been regularly bombing since he became President. There’s no coalition. This is the President just doing what he wants. But instead of a cowboy Texan doing it, it’s a cosmopolitan, biracial law professor.
And we all know what you’d be saying about him if he didn’t do any of that. You know it too, don’t you?
Don’t get me wrong, I like that part of his record. I’m just at a loss as to why none of this concerns Democrats anymore. Doesn’t seem like the vast majority of liberals even think about who we’re bombing anymore.
Exactly why I’ll vote for her. The history thing has a component too, but even with all the BS the mudslingers are throwing, she’s the only one of the candidates I really trust in office.
But that does that say about our choices, that the one who most people think is dishonest is the best choice?
Very possibly – and invasion/occupation will create a lot more than anything else.
Weak comparison – W invaded and occupied the wrong country, getting hundreds of thousands (or more) killed for nothing. Obama lobs a few missiles and drone strikes, targeting dozens or hundreds. They’re not comparable. Unilaterally invading a country is very, very different than unilaterally launching a few airstrikes and drones.
They’re seen very differently because their actions have been very different.
Partly because the other choice is most likely to be an egomaniacal, racist, sexist, completely inexperienced blowhard who is pretty much guaranteed to severely damage the interests of the country.
As I’ve said before, I’d vote for Mickey Mouse before I’d vote for the Donald.
We care, it’s just that the alternatives are so, so much worse.
You’ll have to provide a cite for that compared to Trump and Cruz, but I think evidence (based on things like Politifact) bears out that she’s far less dishonest then they are.
Of *course *you do. :dubious: The calls for “Boots on the ground!” every time some new group pops up and gets some guns come only from *your *side, yanno.
You seem to think it’s indiscriminate. Or that your mental image of “Democrats” should think so. Well, unlike the Republicans who get all the press, we mostly know the world is *not *a cowboy movie.
Yes, why is your party acclaiming Trump?
There was a crooked man
And he had a crooked laugh
And he ran a crooked office
And he hired a crooked staff
He served a crooked term
And he did a crooked job
And rammed a lot of crooked bills through
For a crooked local mob
Why back the crooked man
When his crooked ways you see?
Because the rival candidate
Is crookeder than he!
– Mad magazine, sometime in the '70s
The above does not, of course, apply as between Clinton and Sanders, but does as between Clinton and Trump. He would have to take two baths just to get dirty.
It’s not like we didn’t have decent choices in the primary. A John Kasich vs. Martin O’Malley race may not have had much glitz and excitement as far as the media is concerned, but we wouldn’t be having conversations about qualifications, basic decency, and honesty. It would be a straight up issues, accomplishments, and vision race.
But noooooo, the media doesn’t want that, so they give all the coverage to the big names and the loud mouths.
Considering all the harm Kasich has done to women’s health in Ohio, I’m not sure if “basic decency” would fit.
Cite that womens’ health has declined in Ohio under Kasich’s watch?
How about you eschew the talking point and just say that you don’t like Kasich’s abortion policies. Whether or not that constitutes an affront against basic decency we can all determine for ourselves. I’ll put his record up against Hillary “Not only do I not support any restrictions whatsoever, but I’d like the federal government to pay for abortions” Clinton any day.
But all that aside, if we want to be cantankerous we can look at any candidate’s position on the issues or record and decide that something is indecent. But that’s what leadership is about, doing things that are going to piss some people off. Martin O’Malley and Hillary’s husband certainly did some of that with their approach to crime. But that’s an issues-based debate that’s worth having, as opposed to what we’re talking about now, which is mainly who the bigger asshole is or who the bigger liar is or who has the most punchable face or who has a hydration problem.
I’ll take back the Kasich comment since it’s a bit of a derail.
As to “issues-based debate”, that’s what’s been going on on the Democratic side for months. Actual deep issue discussions.
So what happens when Clinton debates Trump?
I’ll give you that. The reason it’s not worth as much as it should be is because only one of them is debating issues. The other is repeating what her advisors focus grouped and polled extensively. We can’t even look at the record she touts because she’s had to walk so much of it back.
Now if this was a clear cut choice between “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” vs. a return to Clintonism, that would be something. But free trade, welfare reform, crime reduction, spending cuts, smaller government, deregulation? She’s against it all now.
Pay for your own focus groups so you can find out what Clinton will say while debating Trump.
We know what Trump will do: bluster. What Clinton does will be determined by what the focus groups and handlers believe will provide the best contrast without making her look weak. If sticking to issues and being the obviously smarter person in the room works, she’ll do that. If going insult for insult with him works, she’ll do that. What she can’t prepare for is exactly how Trump will choose to attack her. It’s clear that nothing will be out of bounds, and her advisors don’t seem to like bringing up uncomfortable stuff. That’s what was reported in Game Plan and it’s obvious they still won’t bring up taboo subjects with her because her worst moments have been when she’s received those kinds of questions and her responses show just how unprepared she is for that kind of questioning.
They’re discussing issues. Clinton is obviously very knowledgeable and has presented tons of ideas – maybe they’re focus-group tested, or whatever, but it’s a real discussion on issues.