Trump and his cabinet/buffoonery- Get your bunkers ready!

[No Excuses]

1 minute ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

Hence why I said NOT in the same way. N. Korea still testing missiles and not agreeing to compromise......and they are in love. What you think they would do if Hillary was running the show?

 

They aren't doing anything different right now than they have in the past. They have nukes and they have ICBMs. The only difference is that we have a moron who gave them free photo-ops. Practically nothing else has changed. Even his own administration undercuts his rhetortic on NK: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/24/world/asia/john-bolton-north-korea.html 

 

Hillary would also not have absolved Kim Jong Un of the torture and murder of a US citizen that happened under Trump: 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/28/politics/donald-trump-otto-warmbier-kim-jong-un/index.html

 

One could very well argue that he's made things easier for NK by giving the regime a veneer of legitimacy through constant praise, while receiving zero meaningful concessions.

[PeterMP]

6 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

However, I do not agree with many of her State policies and action. I do believe she would of led us into US Military mass casualties (not necessarily war) but I do not support her Situation Room decisions. I also think almost every foreign power Trump is lovers with she would have extremely volatile relations with. Neither is better/worse.

 

You disagreed with getting Osama bin Laden?

 

Do you disagree with coupling economic and foreign policy?

[thegreaterbuzzette]

3 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

You disagreed with getting Osama bin Laden?

 

Do you disagree with coupling economic and foreign policy?

You agreed with her Benghazi choices?

 

 

[No Excuses]

2 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

You agreed with her Benghazi choices?

 

What Benghazi choices?

[@DCGoldPants]

4 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

You agreed with her Benghazi choices?

 

 

 

Keep going.

What choices? 

 

 

[PeterMP]

30 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

You agreed with her Benghazi choices?

 

I didn't say that I agreed with her Situation room decisions or many of her decisions at State.

 

The decisions about one place are not indicative of the majority or may of her decisions.  I can disagree with a small subset of decisions somebody made over a multiyear period and not have it sum up to disagreeing with may of her decisions.

 

Other than very big picture (to try to create and maintain a presence Benghazi), I'm not sure what decisions she made that I would say was good or bad.  And they certainly don't seem to have been related to the Situation Room.

 

(I certainly agreed with the general move to support democracy in the relevant countries after the Arab Spring and if a presence in Benghazi would have been key to doing so, in general, I would have supported that.)

 

Though, I'm honestly not sure of any decisions she made actually in the situation room.

 

Are you?

[Mooka]

Think we need a few more Benghazi hearings to investigate.

 

What's Congress up to these days anyway?

 

[thegreaterbuzzette]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

I didn't say that I agreed with her Situation room decisions or many of her decisions at State.

 

The decisions about one place are not indicative of the majority of her decisions.  I can disagree with a subset of decisions somebody made over a multiyear period and not have it sum up to disagreeing with may of her decisions.

Agreed which is why I didn't default to Benghazi until after the Bin Laden suggestion. Low hanging fruit is not how I debate. It's cheap shots. 

 

 

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

Other than very big picture (to try to create and maintain a presence Benghazi), I'm not sure what decisions she made that I would say was good or bad.  And they certainly don't seem to have been related to the Situation Room.

 

(I certainly agreed with the general move to support democracy in the relevant countries after the Arab Spring and if a presence in Benghazi would have been key to doing so, in general, I would have supported that.)

 

(Though, I'm honestly not sure of any decisions she made actually in the situation room.

 

Are you?)

I was meaning hypithetical situation room had she been elected. Meaning I do not particularly trust her "gut" "on her toes" decisions. 

 

 

Again.....I don't want Trump in office. Often I think I would have preferred she was elected. But you all are smoking dope if you think HRC would have been the unicorn white light opposite of Trump. 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

 

They aren't doing anything different right now than they have in the past. They have nukes and they have ICBMs. The only difference is that we have a moron who gave them free photo-ops. Practically nothing else has changed. Even his own administration undercuts his rhetortic on NK: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/24/world/asia/john-bolton-north-korea.html 

 

Hillary would also not have absolved Kim Jong Un of the torture and murder of a US citizen that happened under Trump: 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/28/politics/donald-trump-otto-warmbier-kim-jong-un/index.html

 

One could very well argue that he's made things easier for NK by giving the regime a veneer of legitimacy through constant praise, while receiving zero meaningful concessions.

 

In addition, he's said that China violating the sanctions doesn't matter, which certainly makes those specific sanctions (and sanctions in general) harder to enforce.

 

He also canceled sanctions before they were announced for no appearant reason other than he likes Kim.

 

He's also decided that what almost everybody agrees was a violation of UN resolutions on missile testing because he doesn't think it was (despite US intelligence including it was).

 

His approach to North Korea has been a disaster.  I'm not sure it is possible to force North Korea to give up their weapons program, and I'm sure if Hillary were President the relationship would superficially more contentious (she wouldn't be holding joint press conferences with Kim), but it would be hard to imagine the situation actually being worse.

 

We're cancelling operations with our democratic allies so the President can have nice photo opts with a ruthless human rights violating dictator.

 

29 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

Agreed which is why I didn't default to Benghazi until after the Bin Laden suggestion. Low hanging fruit is not how I debate. It's cheap shots. 

 

Okay, then what decisions don't you like?

 

You said many...

 

You've really given us none.

 

I will point out that I did ask about tying together foreign policy with economic policy and before the Arab Spring that was her big push.  For example, with respect to China she was trying to pull our foreign and economic policy together with respect to their human rights violation.

 

Really, those are the 2 things that I know that she decided:

 

1.  She advised Obama to get Osama.

2.  She wanted a united foreign, economic, and human rights policy.

[PeterMP]

13 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

Again.....I don't want Trump in office. Often I think I would have preferred she was elected. But you all are smoking dope if you think HRC would have been the unicorn white light opposite of Trump. 

 

I don't expect that if she were President N. Korea would have given up their nuclear weapons.

 

I don't think China would have given up their ambitions to to project their power and interest over the rest of the world.

 

I don't think she had some magic solution to the Syrian crisis.

 

I don't think Russia would have stopped meddling in other people's internal business, given the Crimea back to the Ukraine or withdrawn from Georgia.

 

I don't think Iran and Saudi Arabia would have stopped their indirect fighting that is helping make a mess in the Middle East and parts of N. Africa.

 

I also don't think we'd have the UK Ambassador writing messages saying the US President is incompetent though either.

 

(I don't think anybody has suggested that a Hillary Presidency would have solved the great foreign policy issues of the world, but that doesn't mean the current situation is equal in any sort of way.

 

What you are really doing is creating a strawman by asserting a standard that nobody ever claimed.

 

Even Trump's UK "allies" are bashing his latest statement about the first year Congresswomen.)

[mcsluggo]

18 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

Agreed which is why I didn't default to Benghazi until after the Bin Laden suggestion. Low hanging fruit is not how I debate. It's cheap shots. 

 

 

I was meaning hypithetical situation room had she been elected. Meaning I do not particularly trust her "gut" "on her toes" decisions. 

 

 

Again.....I don't want Trump in office. Often I think I would have preferred she was elected. But you all are smoking dope if you think HRC would have been the unicorn white light opposite of Trump. 

 

a steaming turd in a slowly burning paper bag would have been an awesome upgrade unicorn white light over Trump.      get serious.  

[Dan T.]

Old thread news, so deleted.

 

 

[@DCGoldPants]

So, we don't get what the Benghazi choices were?

 

anywho

 

 

 

 

What the ****, Kellyanne? #WordSalad 

[thegreaterbuzzette]

32 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I don't expect that if she were President N. Korea would have given up their nuclear weapons.

 

I don't think China would have given up their ambitions to to project their power and interest over the rest of the world.

 

I don't think she had some magic solution to the Syrian crisis.

 

I don't think Russia would have stopped meddling in other people's internal business, given the Crimea back to the Ukraine or withdrawn from Georgia.

 

I don't think Iran and Saudi Arabia would have stopped their indirect fighting that is helping make a mess in the Middle East and parts of N. Africa.

 

I also don't think we'd have the UK Ambassador writing messages saying the US President is incompetent though either.

 

(I don't think anybody has suggested that a Hillary Presidency would have solved the great foreign policy issues of the world, but that doesn't mean the current situation is equal in any sort of way.

 

What you are really doing is creating a strawman by asserting a standard that nobody ever claimed.

 

Even Trump's UK "allies" are bashing his latest statement about the first year Congresswomen.)

Actually what I claimed is that in my opinion, it is very likely that had HRC been elected our country would be in just as much disarray and likelihood of bad things happening would be just as likely.

 

I'm not disagreeing with any of your points about how horribly catastrophic him being elected is/was/will be for years. 

 

 

6 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

So, we don't get what the Benghazi choices were?

I'll repeat, it was a statement used to prove the point that both sides can point to a singular narrative to make a point. 

 

Hillary did not single handedly lead to his capture just as Hillary is not singularly at fault for the multiple deaths in Benghazi. But the person at the top gets the credit/blame.....always. 

[PeterMP]

9 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

Actually what I claimed is that in my opinion, it is very likely that had HRC been elected our country would be in just as much disarray and likelihood of bad things happening would be just as likely.

 

Well, you actually said there wouldn't be as much badness in the world.  The UK government believing our President is incompetent is a level of badness I think we could have avoided.

 

Under Trump, more countries have a negative view of the US, have less confidence in the US President, and see us as more of a threat.

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/14/more-people-around-the-world-see-u-s-power-and-influence-as-a-major-threat-to-their-country/

 

I think we could have avoided that.

 

Including many of allies (Mexico, Canada, France, Germany, Australia, etc.)

 

That could have been avoided.

[Dan T.]

I have no earthly idea how he stays married to that woman.

 

Edit: I meant George Conway to Kellyanne, NOT The GreatBuzz to thegreaterbuzzette. 

[Chachie]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

Well, you actually said there wouldn't be as much badness in the world.  The UK government believing our President is incompetent is a level of badness I think we could have avoided.

 

Under Trump, more countries have a negative view of the US, have less confidence in the US President, and see us as more of a threat.

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/14/more-people-around-the-world-see-u-s-power-and-influence-as-a-major-threat-to-their-country/

 

I think we could have avoided that.

 

Including many of allies (Mexico, Canada, France, Germany, Australia, etc.)

 

That could have been avoided.

 

 

 

I was in the process of typing a similar response. We have no idea how an HRC presidency would have affected foreign adversaries but we know for rock-solid sure it wouldn't have alienated our foreign allies. Not to mention the collectives like NATO and the UN.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dan T.]

5 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Well, you actually said there wouldn't be as much badness in the world.  The UK government believing our President is incompetent is a level of badness I think we could have avoided.

 

 

 

She also said she felt the level of hatred would be just as high.  Perhaps.  But the President of the United States wouldn't have been the engine spurring that hatred like this President is.  He uses divisive rhetoric as a political weapon like no other politician since Andrew Jackson.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Obama and Hillary as Secretary of State had/have a terrible record on foreign policy. They accomplished nothing with North Korea, oversaw the growth of Isis, allowed China to increase its influence in the South China Sea, allowed to steal IP from American countries, cheat on trade, allowed Russia to cross several red lines including the annexation of crime, supporting a Regime that used chemical weapons in Syria, and interfering in the 2014 and 2016 elections.  

 

Hillary was a terrible candidate.... it’s not debatable.

 

 

[PeterMP]

8 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Obama and Hillary as Secretary of State had/have a terrible record on foreign policy. They accomplished nothing with North Korea, oversaw the growth of Isis, allowed China to increase its influence in the South China Sea, allowed to steal IP from American countries, cheat on trade, allowed Russia to cross several red lines including the annexation of crime, supporting a Regime that used chemical weapons in Syria, and interfering in the 2014 and 2016 elections.  

 

Hillary was a terrible candidate.... it’s not debatable.

 

Hillary was not a terrible candidate.  She won more votes than anybody other than Obama despite efforts to suppress voters by the other side.  You don't do that if you are a terrible candidate.

 

Many of those things have been happening for multiple years over multiple administrations and none of them have obvious solutions.  All of them are the result of decisions that were made decades ago.

 

Take on of the things from your list.  What would you do?

 

What should we have done to prevent Russia from annexing the Crimea?

 

And Trump hasn't really changed policies on any of them.

[Larry]

Deleted

[visionary]

19 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Obama and Hillary as Secretary of State had/have a terrible record on foreign policy. They accomplished nothing with North Korea, oversaw the growth of Isis, allowed China to increase its influence in the South China Sea, allowed to steal IP from American countries, cheat on trade, allowed Russia to cross several red lines including the annexation of crime, supporting a Regime that used chemical weapons in Syria, and interfering in the 2014 and 2016 elections.  

 

Hillary was a terrible candidate.... it’s not debatable.

I have idea how to respond to this garbage.  In the end it probably isn't worth the effort.  Most of these things happened after Hillary left and/or she advocated strongly against them.

[Dan T.]

11 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Obama and Hillary as Secretary of State had/have a terrible record on foreign policy. They accomplished nothing with North Korea, oversaw the growth of Isis, allowed China to increase its influence in the South China Sea, allowed to steal IP from American countries, cheat on trade, allowed Russia to cross several red lines including the annexation of crime, supporting a Regime that used chemical weapons in Syria, and interfering in the 2014 and 2016 elections.  

 

Hillary was a terrible candidate.... it’s not debatable.

 

 

Even if everything you wrote is unassailable, (which we'll leave aside), what percentage of Trump voters voted for him instead of her based even in part because of those things? My guess would a percentage lower than - say - John Hickenlooper's current poll numbers.