Washington Post ultra-neocon Jen Rubin cheers: Clinton gets to Trump’s RIGHT on national security

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Jess13, Aug 31, 2016.

  1. Jess13 Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #1
    Clinton gets to Trump’s right on national security

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...on-gets-to-trumps-right-on-national-security/

    [If you get paywalled]

    It has been evident for weeks now that Hillary Clinton is a responsible centrist in the tradition of bipartisan internationalism. Donald Trump is not responsible, not centrist, not within any bipartisan tradition of internationalism. Today at the American Legion in Ohio, Clinton gave a speech most Republicans could deliver. [Translation: Pro-war Republicans and neocons]

    [...]

    In the clearest terms possible, Clinton rebuked any idea of “leading from behind.” She told the crowd, “Our power comes with a responsibility to lead – humbly, thoughtfully and with a fierce commitment to our values. Because when America fails to lead, we leave a vacuum – and that either causes chaos, or other countries and networks rush in to fill the void.” If only President Obama had understood that about Iraq and Syria. [Note: See the red flags? You have anti-Obama neocons full-blown supporting Killary] She went on: “So, no matter how hard it gets, no matter how great the challenge, America must lead. And if I am president, we will.”

    She stressed the importance of allies, whom Trump likes to kick to the curb, and of steadiness: “You don’t build a coalition by insulting our friends or acting like a loose cannon.” In that vein she continued, “We can’t cozy up to dictators; we have to stand up to them. [Note: Syria’s going to get the “Libya treatment,” courtesy of Killary] We can’t contain ISIS, we must defeat it – and we will. We’ll do whatever is necessary, for as long as it takes, to bring them to justice and end their reign of terror once and for all.” And she wrapped up with a foreign policy version of “What do you have to lose?” She argued, ” [Things] also can get worse. Much worse. Things will be worse if more countries get nuclear weapons. Things will be worse if we abandon our allies. Things will be worse if our commander in chief orders our military to break the law and commit torture.”

    She not only stole the GOP playbook, she ingested it. It was in short the sort of robust speech the pro-national security Republican in a presidential race usually gives. With the exception of independent conservative Evan McMullin, we don’t have one of those. Clinton suggests in a pinch she will do. In this race, many concerned about national security will agree.
     
  2. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #2
    Well, at least she has a plan, even if it is terrible.

    Can't say the same for the other guy. He's just the crazy drunk uncle that incoherently rambles about **** and nobody knows what the hell he's actually going to do.
     
  3. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #3
    Dumbest response ever.
     
  4. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #4
    If you vote for Hillary, you are voting for a Syrian bloodshed and the continued arming of terrorists.
     
  5. adroit macrumors 6502

    adroit

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    #5
    Hillary Clinton centrist? Are they serious?!? She is an extreme right wing conservative.
     
  6. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #6
    She's going after Republican votes hard.
     
  7. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #7
    Anyone voting for Hillary implicitly supports the 2003 Iraq War.
     
  8. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #8
    Anyone voting for Hillary, is a joke.
     
  9. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #9
    "Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!"
     
  10. cfedu macrumors 65816

    cfedu

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto
    #10
    I have to upvote all comments in this thread. This election year is such a farce, when Rubins who I greatly dislike writes stuff like this, you know this is going to be an entertaining election. I really feel bad for my friends south of the 49th with the choices they have.
     
  11. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #11
    Killary has been chosen to lead the War Party, to destroy countless lives (beyond the thousands and thousands and thousands she already has destroyed) and enrich the military-industrial complex.

    Her Scar-Mangled Banner

    usa flag - dollars blood barbed wire.jpg
     
  12. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #12
    I'd rather at least know a candidate is **** than have a loose cannon with zero clue at all about what they actually want to do.
     
  13. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #13
    When Hillary's hemorrhoids flare up, you don't want to be anywhere near the Middle East.
     
  14. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #14
    Trump: We cannot get rid of Assad, he’s the only thing in the way of the terrorists.

    Killary: Assad must go, we have to destroy Syria the way I destroyed Libya before.

    Trump, other than destroying ISIS, wants peace, nonintervention, no policing the world and no wars; Killary wants to give Syria to ISIS, al-Qaeda and other jihadists, like she did to Libya, and wants any and all other wars and conflicts thrown her way. So you choose a piece of **** instead of the far lesser evil. Laughable.
     
  15. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #15
    Trump's also said in other interviews he wants to bomb innocent civilians. So I'm not buying the whole "peace" crap. He's too inconsistent and mentally unstable to even have a clue of what he'd actually do once in office. Anyone who claims otherwise or claims to know what Trump actually will do is full of it. Even Trump has no ****ing clue what he would do.

    I'm not voting for either of them, for the record.
     
  16. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #16
    Hillary has already led the charge in bombing innocent civilians!
     
  17. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #17
    Yup, and that's one reason why I will not be voting for her.

    But that doesn't defend Trump's complete lack of any being able to string together any rational thoughts or policy ideas without reading off a teleprompter. While still going off on random psychotic tangents mid-speech.
     
  18. cfedu macrumors 65816

    cfedu

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto
    #18

    Hillary has too much blood on her hands, and we know she will continue this stupid approach. As horrible as trump is, he will always be better than Hillary. Even if there is a 1% possibility that Trump will do an OK job, that is still better odds than the 100% disaster that Clinton will be.
    --- Post Merged, Aug 31, 2016 ---
    If Trump is doing really bad as President, he will be impeached with the support of both parties. Clinton is too smart to be impeached, which is the scary part, if she wins it's game over.
     
  19. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #19
    I think regardless of who wins we'll probably just end up with 4 more years of complete gridlock. And hopefully they won't run for reelection in 2020.
     
  20. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #20
    Thank you for telling the truth.
     
  21. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #21
    We already have Syrian bloodshed. "Arming terrorists" aka supporting allies of convenience is a time-honored practice engaged in by western powers in the Middle East and in Asia since the waning days of The Great Game and the subsequent battles of Cold War proxies. Is it nice? No. Does it work? Well, it saves American lives to fight wars on the cheap with our money and someone else's blood. Is there backlash? You can bet the ranch on that, and we may actually have done that a few times, the reports are still coming in...

    I am really sick of the right's hyperbole on Clinton's foreign policy, and on Obama's for that matter. The middle east has been a tinderbox for 70 years. Flexibility and pragmatism are only dirty words to Republicans when they are deployed by Democrats. Get over it. We kill ISIS leaders and the right whines about killing with drones. We release Guantanamo prisoners and the right whines about letting terrorists run free. Make up your ****ing minds and next time put up a candidate with a comprehensible foreign policy and may the better candidate win again. This time that is Clinton.

    If we vote for Trump, we can have no idea what we are actually voting for. A complete black box. His quixotic take on policy in any given day will be limited only by the power of the House to impeach him and that of the Senate to cause his removal from office. Which two events I would not be surprised to see happen shortly after his inauguration. There's a difference between flexibility and impulsivity. Trump is about the latter. Would you put a three year old in the Oval Office? I wouldn't.
    --- Post Merged, Aug 31, 2016 ---
    My folk art banner from a couple years ago, in progress, made of bits of different fabrics like we're made of in the USA. Enjoy the freedoms we have. I certainly do. Clinton's not going to destroy those freedoms. She's a patriot too. She didn't have to take that SoS job. It's thankless, as Kerry is rediscovering every day even as we fill these forums wtih our armchair critiques. Now she has stepped up to campaign for the topmost thankless job, that of President. I'll take her experience and willingness to serve over Trump's eagerness to hold center stage in the media spotlight 24/7/365. That's his claim to fame, and his terrible weakness.

    AmericanFolkArtFlagSummer2012jpg.jpg


     
  22. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #22
    I have no issue saying the same thing for Obama, Bush, Clinton (the Slick Willy one), Bush (the other one), and Reagan. Their foreign policy is all the same and a failure. Time for somebody who does not consider Kissinger a mentor. Time for somebody who doesn't have a record of supporting regime change. Time for somebody who wants to work with Russia and not set up a new Cold War. Time for somebody who doesn't react with glee to the killing of a foreign leader.

    You vote for Clinton, you are voting for a foreign policy that is opposed by U.S. military generals and one that intentionally cedes control of territory to terrorists (no, not 'allies', terrorists).
     
  23. LizKat, Aug 31, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2016

    LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #23
    I hasten to remind that I voted for Sanders in the primaries... and support everything that Hersh noted that Tulsi Gabbard has said about our involvement in Syria, which indeed is not in line with Obama's policies so far implemented.

    Nonetheless, considering Trump: we've already heard him question our relationships in the UN and NATO. We've already heard him question protocols and agreements on use of nukes. We've already heard him suggest one way to combat terrorists is go after their families. This kind of stuff has already causes consternation amongst our allies as well as members of the military and former members of Obama's administration.

    If I vote for Clinton it will not be because I like her or am a fan of her policies. It's because I don't think Trump is qualified to be President. I trust Clinton's judgments on foreign policy to be within parameters our allies understand even if they too are not fans of particular viewpoints she takes. She knows how to negotiate. I don't trust Donald Trump's judgment on anything, and why should I? He has no track record of being trustworthy.
     
  24. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #24
    It’s a nice piece, I’m up voting you for that :). I disagree with you on Hillary.
     
  25. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #25
    Sigh. You must know I wish there were different candidates... I can't stand this election. I expected more from us as a country by now. Sort of hoping this is some kind of watershed and that the appearance of both parties being pretty threadbare in the benches is just an anomaly. I think there's too much focus on winning with recognizable names attached to venerable hacks, and not enough on developing good bench from grassroots.
     

Share This Page