IGX

I think they meant "dark" in the sense of "not too bright."

seeahill wrote:I think they meant "dark" in the sense of "not too bright."

Shut your mouth. Trump knows all the big words.

Trump is a fear-monger. He appeals to fear, hatred of the other, us versus them, and mixes it in with a stew of vague promises to restore law and order, rearrange world security and the economy to America's dictates, and restrict the civil liberties of those who get in our way.

Hillary's e-mail program was reckless, but she is smart, experienced, and moderate-left.

Unless you want a spiraling-down economy from trade wars, a world careening on major power war, and an authoritarian state racially on fire, choice is easy

Hebrew Hammer wrote:Trump is a fear-monger. He appeals to fear, hatred of the other, us versus them, and mixes it in with a stew of vague promises to restore law and order, rearrange world security and the economy to America's dictates, and restrict the civil liberties of those who get in our way.

Hillary's e-mail program was reckless, but she is smart, experienced, and moderate-left.

Unless you want a spiraling-down economy from trade wars, a world careening on major power war, and an authoritarian state racially on fire, choice is easy

That's pretty fear-mongery.

Hebrew Hammer wrote: a world careening on major power war, and an authoritarian state racially on fire, choice is easy

Pretty much Hillary's record as Secretary of State.

I'll break out the well-used and never-answered: Name three accomplishments of Secretary Hillary Clinton.

johno wrote:

Hebrew Hammer wrote: a world careening on major power war, and an authoritarian state racially on fire, choice is easy

Pretty much Hillary's record as Secretary of State.

I'll break out the well-used and never-answered: Name three accomplishments of Secretary Hillary Clinton.

1. She gave Republicans control of the House for the first time since the Depression.
2. Created a failed state in Libya.
3. She totally reassured Putin that the US wants a solid relationship with Russia.

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:

johno wrote:

Hebrew Hammer wrote: a world careening on major power war, and an authoritarian state racially on fire, choice is easy

Pretty much Hillary's record as Secretary of State.

I'll break out the well-used and never-answered: Name three accomplishments of Secretary Hillary Clinton.

1. She gave Republicans control of the House for the first time since the Depression.
2. Created a failed state in Libya.
3. She totally reassured Putin that the US wants a solid relationship with Russia.

Who could ever imagine that Khaddafi would represent the good old days in Libya, that Assad would probably be the best of Syria's bad choices, and that America would be funding Iran's terrorist contributions. They had one policy goal; "don't do stupid shit". Oops.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

Hebrew Hammer wrote:Trump is a fear-monger. He appeals to fear, hatred of the other, us versus them, and mixes it in with a stew of vague promises to restore law and order, rearrange world security and the economy to America's dictates, and restrict the civil liberties of those who get in our way.

Hillary's e-mail program was reckless, but she is smart, experienced, and moderate-left.

Unless you want a spiraling-down economy from trade wars, a world careening on major power war, and an authoritarian state racially on fire, choice is easy

That's pretty fear-mongery.

That is a great response, and on target.

So let me be more boring and lawyer-like. In your heart of hearts - (i) What do you think the world's response will be to Trump's announcing on day 1 he's renegotiating trade agreements to make America First? (ii) What do you think China's, Russia's, North Korea's, Turkey's, and Pakistan's response will be to Trump's announcing on day 1 that America is pulling back on security commitments unless others pay up, and our foreign policy now makes America First?

johno wrote:

Hebrew Hammer wrote: a world careening on major power war, and an authoritarian state racially on fire, choice is easy

Pretty much Hillary's record as Secretary of State.

I'll break out the well-used and never-answered: Name three accomplishments of Secretary Hillary Clinton.

That's a fair question, but I don't know if it's meaningful. The last secretary of state I recall that had accomplishments, whether you liked them or not, was Henry Kissinger. He was in some ways a co-president. Kissinger in some ways, though was at the end of Pax Americana, when American really had a unilateral say in the world. That may have ended with Vietnam.Other than Kissinger, secretaries of state carry out the administration's policy - they use diplomacy to try to make it work.

This is a messy time. I'm not a Bush-basher. I think he made reasonable choices at the time based on what we knew. But regardless of what he did, this stage of history is the unraveling of the Islamic world created after WW1. No one is going to fix it. It will take patience, strength, engagement, and vision to contain it, mitigate the harms, and keep it from engulfing the world in flames. I think Obama became too disengaged, but that was his policy, not hers.

Anyway, she was Secretary of State during dangerous times, she knows world leaders and understands the fragility of the world and the extraordinary effort it takes to keep it from disaster. That's food experience and a good quality for a President to have.

Hebrew Hammer wrote: this stage of history is the unraveling of the Islamic world created after WW1

. . . the islamic world with boundaries created arbitrarily by the west, maintained for a time by brutal authoritarian regimes

at whose feet do you lay the post-colonial disintegration of the middle east?

dead man walking wrote:

Hebrew Hammer wrote: this stage of history is the unraveling of the Islamic world created after WW1

. . . the islamic world with boundaries created arbitrarily by the west, maintained for a time by brutal authoritarian regimes

at whose feet do you lay the post-colonial disintegration of the middle east?

From a causation standpoint, the West plays a major role in this drama, but I don't see it as evil. From a moral standpoint, the Arab Islamic culture froze for centuries while the rest of the world modernized, and then adopted political jihadi Islam. That is what led to the modern crisis. For an easy contrast, India is a prosperous, thriving democracy, though it went through the same colonialism.

Yes I Have Balls wrote:Which would you rather? Instigate Russia in a face to face fight, or allow them to fuck you in the ass?

I'm a lover, not a fighter.

Hebrew Hammer wrote:From a causation standpoint, the West plays a major role in this drama, but I don't see it as evil. From a moral standpoint, the Arab Islamic culture froze for centuries while the rest of the world modernized, and then adopted political jihadi Islam. That is what led to the modern crisis. For an easy contrast, India is a prosperous, thriving democracy, though it went through the same colonialism.

and africa?

curious, not argumentative.

Yes I Have Balls wrote:Which would you rather? Instigate Russia in a face to face fight, or allow them to fuck you in the ass?

Anyone who has paid attention to the Russian economy over the last couple years knows there's a third choice, and that the Russian's haven't enjoyed it.

dead man walking wrote:

Hebrew Hammer wrote:From a causation standpoint, the West plays a major role in this drama, but I don't see it as evil. From a moral standpoint, the Arab Islamic culture froze for centuries while the rest of the world modernized, and then adopted political jihadi Islam. That is what led to the modern crisis. For an easy contrast, India is a prosperous, thriving democracy, though it went through the same colonialism.

and africa?

curious, not argumentative.

I don't know African history well, but it seems like Western and Arab colonialism was much more harmful and exploitive there. But again culture seems to make a big difference - Anglo and Christian culture seems to be a marker for modernizing and success.

Hebrew Hammer wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

Hebrew Hammer wrote:Trump is a fear-monger. He appeals to fear, hatred of the other, us versus them, and mixes it in with a stew of vague promises to restore law and order, rearrange world security and the economy to America's dictates, and restrict the civil liberties of those who get in our way.

Hillary's e-mail program was reckless, but she is smart, experienced, and moderate-left.

Unless you want a spiraling-down economy from trade wars, a world careening on major power war, and an authoritarian state racially on fire, choice is easy

That's pretty fear-mongery.

That is a great response, and on target.

So let me be more boring and lawyer-like. In your heart of hearts - (i) What do you think the world's response will be to Trump's announcing on day 1 he's renegotiating trade agreements to make America First? (ii) What do you think China's, Russia's, North Korea's, Turkey's, and Pakistan's response will be to Trump's announcing on day 1 that America is pulling back on security commitments unless others pay up, and our foreign policy now makes America First?

I think most of them will be rational actors. If the bank says it's time to fulfill your mortgage obligations, "or else", most people will work to fulfill those obligations. Could be the very best thing that's happened to NATO ever.

Or the exact opposite. That's the attractor/repeller of someone willing to kick out the jams

Now a question for you, are you not convinced that Hillary is the most venal and corrupt potential president of the modern era? If you're not concerned that the Clinton Foundation and their "speeches" aren't corruption personified, you're not paying attention or deliberately blind.

Regarding our international relationships, do you want an actor who's supported multiple international debacles vs. a clean slate?

This binary choice is not as clear as you want it to look.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh1wctQNKRM[/youtube]

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

Hebrew Hammer wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

Hebrew Hammer wrote:Trump is a fear-monger. He appeals to fear, hatred of the other, us versus them, and mixes it in with a stew of vague promises to restore law and order, rearrange world security and the economy to America's dictates, and restrict the civil liberties of those who get in our way.

Hillary's e-mail program was reckless, but she is smart, experienced, and moderate-left.

Unless you want a spiraling-down economy from trade wars, a world careening on major power war, and an authoritarian state racially on fire, choice is easy

That's pretty fear-mongery.

That is a great response, and on target.

So let me be more boring and lawyer-like. In your heart of hearts - (i) What do you think the world's response will be to Trump's announcing on day 1 he's renegotiating trade agreements to make America First? (ii) What do you think China's, Russia's, North Korea's, Turkey's, and Pakistan's response will be to Trump's announcing on day 1 that America is pulling back on security commitments unless others pay up, and our foreign policy now makes America First?

I think most of them will be rational actors. If the bank says it's time to fulfill your mortgage obligations, "or else", most people will work to fulfill those obligations. Could be the very best thing that's happened to NATO ever.

Or the exact opposite. That's the attractor/repeller of someone willing to kick out the jams

Now a question for you, are you not convinced that Hillary is the most venal and corrupt potential president of the modern era? If you're not concerned that the Clinton Foundation and their "speeches" aren't corruption personified, you're not paying attention or deliberately blind.

Regarding our international relationships, do you want an actor who's supported multiple international debacles vs. a clean slate?

This binary choice is not as clear as you want it to look.

As far as crookedness goes, Jimmy Carter was honest as the day is long and was probably the worst president in the second half of the second century. Nixon was a crook and wasn't so bad as a president. JFK, Johnson, Reagan, all flouted some serious rules, but were OK presidents. That's not a brief in favor of crookedness, but it's a reflection that democracy is a messy process and unflinching honesty in itself doesn't make a great President.

Hillary's flouting of the rules seems to involve secrecy and greed. In the big picture, I'm willing to live with that,

The mortgage analogy and NATO is a good one. The difference is that the bank has a mortgage, takes back the property and sells it. That's capitalism. With alliances, they fray, members start looking elsewhere for friends or decide they need a nuclear deterrent.

Hillary's foreign policy has been consistent with the consensus foreign policy of Republicans and Democrats. With what we know now, nearly every Senator and Congressman erred in the Iraq vote. Apart from that, we can't fix the Middle East, we can only try to contain the harm and work long-term (decades) for stability. I actually think Hillary's biggest misjudgment as the SOS was her reset with Russia. But she's seen that's a mistake.

Trump isn't a clean slate. He's an isolationist and protectionist (except for wiping out ISIS). Give the man credit that he means what he says.

HH,,,,Look around you. The voters in this country want to kick some serious ass and Trump is promising that for them. I'm disappointed that you're still defending the Dems even after the shambles they've left us with all the foreign and domestic policies.... Are you voting for Hillary anyway??
You wrote a book on negotiating contracts. Couldn't you have done much better than those peckerheads did with Iran?
I can't forgive you. Not even if you send me more care packages.

Andy82 wrote:HH,,,,Look around you. The voters in this country want to kick some serious ass and Trump is promising that for them. I'm disappointed that you're still defending the Dems even after the shambles they've left us with all the foreign and domestic policies.... Are you voting for Hillary anyway??
You wrote a book on negotiating contracts. Couldn't you have done much better than those peckerheads did with Iran?
I can't forgive you. Not even if you send me more care packages.

I suppose you've probably petitioned your trailer park to change is name to Trump Gardens.

What about your girlfriend having to resign from the DNC? She's even meaner than you. That's a nasty picture thinking of her going at it with you in the sheets and wearing a strap-on, forcing you to say over and over again, "In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope."

Since I was in second grade, I've never been wrong on predicting the next president. It has nothing to do with issues, policies and psychoanalysis of candidates. I'm batting totally 1000! At the end of this coming week I will tell you who our next prez will be.

Hebrew Hammer wrote: Give the man credit that he means what he says.

Not sure this is possible as he says one thing one day and changes his mind and says the exact opposite the next day.

Pretty impressive editorial. I'm a little surprised we've had zero elected Republicans endorse Hillary.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Pretty impressive editorial. I'm a little surprised we've had zero elected Republicans endorse Hillary.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

You're surprised they haven't endorsed a Democratic candidate with a majority unfavorable rating who would never qualify for another security clearance through the normal process?

Both of the major-party candidates are "uniquely unqualified to serve as president, in experience and temperament."