Going Commando Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Sure diplomacy has limits, but war should always be a last resort, and when pursued it should be done in coalition, not unilaterally (which is what Bernie said). Anyway I disagree that Hillary did well on FP. She looks like a warmonger appealing to fear. Voted for war in Iraq, calls diplomacy "naive," talks about Korean missles hitting Hawaii (reminiscent of Rumsfeld's bogus "mushroom cloud" threat), etc. Yeah, not a fan of Hillary's foreign policy ideas and bonafides either. She is a hawk and a fearmonger. And she should absolutely be roasted for the AUMF vote in Iraq. It was a monumental **** up. I'm afraid she's too much of a political coward to go against the popular grain and do what's right rather than what's politically expedient if push ever came to shove during her administration and, heaven forbid, we have to walk back from the precipice of war with a ME country. And I don't love how cozy she was with Robert Kagan during her time as Secretary of State. The NeoCon postulation of the world, America's place in it, and war is such a load of horse****. She's cut from that same kind of Imperialist cloth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Bernie needs to channel his inner Rick, invent a time machine, and bring a 20 year younger version of himself from the past to now. Then have a Clinton-Sanders ticket. They really do need each other. Clinton needs someone to remind her of the little guy economically and curb her corporate streak, as well as make her pivot on FP from hardliner to negotiator when the situation is ripe (like how on Iran she set up the key components of the sanction regime that Kerry then used to broker a deal, but Clinton didn't want to broker a deal, she just wanted to keep the sanction pressure on). And Bernie could use her FP experience and pragmatism to fix his FP gap and make his programs palatable to congress. Morty 2056 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I didn't say she did well on FP. Just that all the journalists and FP folks were saying Bernie sounded pretty bad (and uninformed) (Other than the Iraq vote which he brought up repeatedly sometimes to seemingly avoid answering other questions). The other stuff you said, true, but the devil is in the details. Anyway, I hope whoever our next pres is has the best info available to them and pays attention to it. I thought sanders distinction that North Korea both has nuclear weapons and is entirely isolated was astute. Drawing the distinction that Russia is already integrated into the global economy and thus has a lot to loose and a lot to gain depending upon their relationships with the west. I thought between Russia, North Korea, and Iran Bernie's answer was perfectly plausible. I also liked how the moderator gave the answer before Clinton had to answer.. It was obviously a gotcha designed for Bernie.. I thought he did fine. Bernie needs to channel his inner Rick, invent a time machine, and bring a 20 year younger version of himself from the past to now. Bernie is six years older than Hillary, and four years older than Trump... and 5 years younger than John McCain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Speaking of foreign policy: Hillary invoked Henry Kissinger tonight. Not the first time she's mentioned their mutual admiration. FYI: The man is a war criminal, with so many human rights violations and so much blood on his hands. Just ask the Chileans what he thinks of democratic socialism. http://www.salon.com/2016/01/12/emails_expose_close_ties_between_hillary_clinton_and_accused_war_criminal_henry_kissinger/ Kissinger has been linked to war crimes in Vietnam, a genocide in Bangladesh and Timor and 3 assassinations in (1)Chile, (2)Cyprus, and (3) on the streets of Washington, D.C ( Orlando Letelier) .. Personally I thought that was one of three low points in the debate for Hillary.... just for me personally... Then when she said Kissinger complemented and told her that he thought the State Dept was the best run under her administration I spit bourbon out of my nose.. I was at the State Dept when Hillary was there.. and I was at the State Dept when Colin Powell was there.. Powell was the superior organizer and leader of the State Dept.... Hell so was Madeline Albright... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Hillary: I want to work with what we got. Low points for Hillary... (1) "If I get into office and determine the banks need to be broken up, I will do that".... My thought was Hell Hillary they've each been fined billions of dollars for breaking the laws and causing the 2008 crisis... They were each said to be too big to fail in 2008 and they are each larger today than they were then.. What more evidence do you need woman? (2) Even lower... Q... Do we need a 21st century Glass Steagall Law? Hillary, " I don't think that law goes far enough".... There were lots of industries involved in the 2008 financial crisis... blah blah blah blah... Translation... No Glass Steagall Law from a Hillary administration. So I guess the banking industry did get something for their multiple $400,000 fee's after all. Glass Steagall was the law repealed under the Bill Clinton Administration which many have linked to allowing the real-estate bubble which burst in 2008... Repealing this law allowed savings banks and investment banks to cross pollinate and created the super banks which we have today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Kissinger has been linked to war crimes in Vietnam, a genocide in Bangladesh and Timor and 3 assassinations in (1)Chile, (2)Cyprus, and (3) on the streets of Washington, D.C ( Orlando Letelier) Speaking of Kissinger, I just saw a couple of minutes ago that he was hanging out with Putin on Wednesday. And looking the two of them up, now that I've seen this. I notice this recent article: https://www.rt.com/news/331194-putin-meets-friend-kissinger/ Putin meets ‘old friend’ Kissinger visiting Russia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:2c47103e735b470f982506e4ad5d6e0f Analysis: Clinton moves aggressively to hold off Sanders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 why do so many Canadians come here for health care if they love it so? in fact why do so many from all over the world do so? You do know that Americans have been travelling to India and other countries for years because they have world class hospitals and all their doctors were trained in America, but their costs are fraction of the costs in the US....you know that right? I'm certain you're aware that they even have a name for it "Medical Tourism." I just know that you know that. Which makes me wonder why you ignore it and then make a post like you did that pretends that all the world flocks to our steps as the great American medical saviors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Do you think that a company that is trying to promote people leaving the US to get healthcare might be prone to over inflate the number of people doing it? LOL! That is so utterly typical PeterMP: I want numbers to validate your claim. **is then supplied with numbers** PeterMP: employs genetic fallacy to dismiss the numbers he received. **repeat as necessary** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 there is also the matter of going for treatments not allowed here ya'll dont wanna talk about the election? This IS about the election...as it pertains to medical care. BTW, the VAST majority of medical tourism patients are not going overseas for unapproved treatments. They are going because they can get the SAME treatments at 75% less the costs. http://www.medretreat.com/procedures/pricing.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Q poll today. National Hillary 44 Bernie 42 A 29 point swing from last month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Sanders: I want to get rid of Citizens United Hillary: I want to work with what we got. LOL Look at the process for over-turning Citizens United...once you realize that there is NO freaking way that our nation comes together on that in such a way as to over-turn SCOTUS then we can move off it and realize that it's the law of the land. Or else you can stand next to the Pro-Birthers and scream about it every four years with no results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Look at the process for over-turning Citizens United...once you realize that there is NO freaking way that our nation comes together on that in such a way as to over-turn SCOTUS then we can move off it and realize that it's the law of the land. Or else you can stand next to the Pro-Birthers and scream about it every four years with no results. People say the same thing about Roe. But we see more and more restrictions on abortions. Can we get rid of Citizens U? Not without a new court. But can we gut it? Certainly. Does anyone else think that if any bigwig democrat was in this race that Hillary would be polling 3rd? Biden, Warren, Brown, Gore. I think all of them would be trouncing her Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 LOL! That is so utterly typical PeterMP: I want numbers to validate your claim. **is then supplied with numbers** PeterMP: employs genetic fallacy to dismiss the numbers he received. **repeat as necessary** And you trust everything every company puts on the web where they've given you no clue where or how the information was derived? That's the sort of thing you go around making decisions based on? Or when a random piece of information is supplied with no context or idea of how it was derived, do you ask yourself if the source seems credible? Where I come from we call that healthy skepticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 February 05, 2016, 08:17 am Poll: Sanders nearly tied with Clinton nationwide Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders has dramatically cut into the nationwide lead of primary rival Hillary Clinton, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll. The poll released Friday finds Clinton leading the race with 44 percent support, compared to 42 percent support for Sanders, within the survey's margin of error. The last iteration of the poll in December had Clinton leading Sanders nationwide by a 61-30 point margin. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268362-sanders-tied-with-clinton-nationwide-poll Shocker!! I see Kilmer beat me to it.. Nice Job Kilmer.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 And you trust everything every company puts on the web where they've given you no clue where or how the information was derived? That's the sort of thing you go around making decisions based on? Or when a random piece of information is supplied with no context or idea of how it was derived, do you ask yourself if the source seems credible? Where I come from we call that healthy skepticism. No, you weren't skeptical. You went straight to nefarious intent to mislead because you didn't like the source. That is a conspiratorial mindset, not skepticism. Skepticism says, "Hmmm, let me look into those numbers because I honestly wonder about their validity." Conspiracy says, "Ahhh, well those don't support my position so they are obviously cooked by the people who are in the industry." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Look at the process for over-turning Citizens United...once you realize that there is NO freaking way that our nation comes together on that in such a way as to over-turn SCOTUS then we can move off it and realize that it's the law of the land. Or else you can stand next to the Pro-Birthers and scream about it every four years with no results. The next President of the United States will likely have 3-4 supreme court nominations to appoint.. So repealing "citizens united" if it's a priority would definitely be a possibility. Antonin Scalia is 79 Anthony Kennedy is 79 Ruth Bader Ginsburg 84 Stephen Breyer is 77 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 The next President of the United States will likely have 3-4 supreme court nominations to appoint.. So repealing "citizens united" if it's a priority would definitely be a possibility. The thought of Trump or Cruz making those nominations just sent chills down my spine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 No, you weren't skeptical. You went straight to nefarious intent to mislead because you didn't like the source. That is a conspiratorial mindset, not skepticism. Skepticism says, "Hmmm, let me look into those numbers because I honestly wonder about their validity." Conspiracy says, "Ahhh, well those don't support my position so they are obviously cooked by the people who are in the industry." 1. I went into the conversation with some knowledge and my knowledge led me to believe that getting a good number would be difficult and that a credible source was unlikely. 2. Before asking him for a source, I did my own search and verified what I thought was the case (that a number from a good source doesn't seen to exist). 3. I read the page that he linked to completely and the companies homepage. They give no other information on the number. They are a company that is built around sending people to other countries to get healthcare. There is no reference, no other link, or no other information on it other than it is their 2014 "estimate". No information is given about how they generated the estimate or even why they should be in a position to generate a good estimate. Some company that is trying to promote a certain activity has given a number for what they are trying to promote without any supporting evidence. In those types of situations, I'm skeptical of that number. Companies in general have a history of over estimating the importance/scope of their activity if they think it will help their business. What else would you have me do? What else can I or should I do in the context of "Hmmm, let me look into those numbers because I honestly wonder about their validity."? (I also love how JMS completely makes up facts (for "your" side), but its me being skeptical of a number put out by a company about the thing they are trying to promote you decide to call out.) Realistically, I don't think how many people leave or come to the US for healthcare is at all relevant to the conversation. I was just honestly surprised that anybody (well anybody other than JMS) would so definitively state that more people leave then come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 You do know that Americans have been travelling to India and other countries for years because they have world class hospitals and all their doctors were trained in America, but their costs are fraction of the costs in the US....you know that right? I'm certain you're aware that they even have a name for it "Medical Tourism." I just know that you know that. Which makes me wonder why you ignore it and then make a post like you did that pretends that all the world flocks to our steps as the great American medical saviors. Pretty sure I even gave the example of my neighbor doing so for costs....you know that right? Odd all their doctors(in your words) would come here to be trained ....pretty sure there is a reason besides experiencing our culture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Pretty sure I even gave the example of my neighbor doing so for costs....you know that right? Odd all their doctors(in your words) would come here to be trained ....pretty sure there is a reason besides experiencing our culture It sure ain't to save money...cue Bernie. Maybe they'll stay here with incentives...like really saving lives, not pandering to Rx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 2. Before asking him for a source, I did my own search and verified what I thought was the case (that a number from a good source doesn't seen to exist). How about the Center for Desease Control ( CDC ) http://www.cdc.gov/features/medicaltourism/ "Medical tourism" refers to traveling to another country for medical care. It's estimated that up to 750,000 US residents travel abroad for care each year. Many people who travel for care do so because treatment is much cheaper in another country. In addition, a large number of medical tourists are immigrants to the United States returning to their home country for care. The most common procedures that people undergo on medical tourism trips include cosmetic surgery, dentistry, and heart surgery. (I also love how JMS completely makes up facts (for "your" side), but its me being skeptical of a number put out by a company about the thing they are trying to promote you decide to call out.) I like how you libel me but give no example I can respond to.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 It sure ain't to save money...cue Bernie. Maybe they'll stay here with incentives...like really saving lives, not pandering to Rx. No need to cue Bernie. Hillary is the nominee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Poll: Sanders nearly tied with Clinton nationwide I sometimes wonder how much of Hillary's difficulties are about her, her history, and skills or how brilliantly, ruthlessly, and tirelessly the GOP have worked to define her over the last 20 years. She has been one of their favorite villains ever since Hillarycare... and probably even before that. (Don't really remember what Hillary care proposed, but I do wonder if modern Repubs would like it better or worse than Obamacare) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I sometimes wonder how much of Hillary's difficulties are about her, her history, and skills or how brilliantly, ruthlessly, and tirelessly the GOP have worked to define her over the last 20 years. The flip side of that is, she certainly should have expected it, and had a plan to deal with it. Heck, I think Ted Cruz has done a much better job of dealing with his (well earned) image of Satanic evil. I may think the guy is evil incarnate, but he seems to know how to market it better than Hillary does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.