June 4, 2016

"There are two big problems in trying to analyze Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy speech."

Says Dan Drezner (at The Washington Post). The first is — as I suspect you know — it was mainly an attack on Donald Trump. He's "dangerously incoherent," etc. We get it, but what does that tell us about Clinton's foreign policy?

The second big problem is: "Commentators are already saying that Clinton is to the right of Trump on foreign policy, following up on previous pundit claims that Clinton is more hawkish than Trump on matters of national security." But according to Drezner, "hawk-dove distinctions" don't "really work" and are "pretty useless." He seems to like the idea of replacing "hawk" and "dove" with Hamiltonian, Wilsonian, Jacksonian, and Jeffersonian. In this set-up, Trump gets Jackson and Hillary gets both Wilson and Hamilton.

103 comments:

MadisonMan said...

For the Washington Post, I suspect the biggest problem in analyzing Hillary's Foreign Policy Speech is that it's hard to defend her stands and record.

traditionalguy said...

A comment pretty well summed it up. Hillary made a good speech saying, " Trust Me. I am only a crook, but Trump is a dangerous change agent."

He will have to face that meme from her and the corrupt media serving as a branch of her campaign. But a crook who has been indicted for Espionage and Public Corruption is not going to beat Dangerous Trump.

Michael K said...

Trump is a domestic policy candidate. Given that everything Obama and Hillary have done in foreign affairs the past 7 years has turned out to be a disaster, how could Trump do worse ?

I think "America First" is going to be a significant rally point for a lot of Americans this year.

Sebastian said...

"In this set-up, Trump gets Jackson and Hillary gets both Wilson and Hamilton." Hmm. 1. The labeling assumes consistency and coherence. But who knows what Trump will think, say, or do the day after tomorrow? Who knows what Opportunistic Hillary! will do in fact -- reset the reset, do to Yemen what we did to Libya, be for or against TPP? 2. Which "Wilson"--hapless League-of-Nations internationalist or big-gov, socialist-oppressing, Constitution-despising, war-mongering segregationist? 3. Shouldn't Trump also get America-great-empire-of-liberty-mythologizing, white-yeoman-defending, anti-muzzie pasha-busting Jefferson?

Derek Kite said...

Is this like the 3am phone call stuff that she tried against Obama? Worked really really well. Went over the same way with all the bien pensants in the media as well if I remember correctly. This is classic playing to the critics, while bemoaning the empty seats.

If Trump comes out tomorrow and says "I have only one word to say about Hillary and foreign policy. Libya", what happens?

narciso said...

The Wilson who landed forces in haiti, with a 19 year quagmire.

Curious George said...

"In this set-up, Trump gets Jackson and Hillary gets both Wilson and Hamilton."

And the American electorate goes "What?"

Michael K said...

"If Trump comes out tomorrow and says "I have only one word to say about Hillary and foreign policy. Libya", what happens?"

The "Reset button" with Russia worked well, too.

damikesc said...

Syria was a great idea too.

MayBee said...

And the American electorate goes "What?"

Exactly

Bob Boyd said...

Hillary's foreign policy deliberations include deciding what country she should flee to in a worst case legal scenario.

Bob said...

For those who have never been exposed to it, a summary of Walter Russell Mead's spectrum theory of US foreign policy.

Meade said...

"In this set-up, Trump gets Jackson and Hillary gets both Wilson and Hamilton."

Hillary should also get Johnson.

Meade said...

Wasn't Lincoln the original America First president?

Bob Boyd said...

Hillary never had much interest in Johnson.

madAsHell said...

Didn't she summarize her world view with....."What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"

Miriam said...

Trump is not Jacksonian. He is more Alfred E. Neumanian.

PB said...

Well, it's Hillary. She's got a horrendous record as Secretary of State and you cannot believe anything she says.

Miriam said...

Did Jackson also dismiss federal judges for being of Mexican descent? So statesmanlike. So Presidential.

rhhardin said...

I'd go with hawk and rabbit.

damikesc said...

So Hillary wants us to go to war a lot. I'm betting the "anti war" groups will have no problem with that. They've had no issues with Obama's liberal usage of the military with no threat to the US whatsoever so far, either.

Did Jackson also dismiss federal judges for being of Mexican descent? So statesmanlike. So Presidential.

I'm going to stop being polite here. Your comment is so profoundly moronic that you should be ashamed you have even thought it. That you thought it was witty enough to warrant snark indicates that you are likely too dumb to understand the most basic of concepts.

The issue is that the judge is a member of a virulently racist group, not that the judge is Hispanic. Much like recusing a judge for being a KKK member isn't saying the judge is bad because he/she is white (well, except amongst Progs, who DO think being white is inherently bad).


No more being nice to idiots who keep making the same false "observation". You're either an idiot or a troll and should be treated as such.

Curious George said...

He can also bring up example after example of foreign governments donating millions to the Clinton Foundation...and then getting favorable treatment by the Hildabeast and the US. Trump just add the "She needs to go to jail" and winner.

Curious George said...

Miriam said...
Trump is not Jacksonian. He is more Alfred E. Neumanian.

Miriam said...
Did Jackson also dismiss federal judges for being of Mexican descent? So statesmanlike. So Presidential.

You're embarrassing yourself.

Miriam said...

Oh please Damikesc. So if you want to get rid of a judge on your case you accuse him of not being able to be impartial because he is of a certain opinion, or ethnicity, or gender? Pick your poison, now you get to judge shop? Your comment is particularily dumb.

damikesc said...

He can also bring up example after example of foreign governments donating millions to the Clinton Foundation...and then getting favorable treatment by the Hildabeast and the US. Trump just add the "She needs to go to jail" and winner.

But "Trump is dangerous".

Not the woman who has routinely erased and hidden government records she doesn't want you to see. Not the woman who left an alleged friend of hers to die and arrested a filmmaker who didn't do anything. Not the woman who sold our interests to the highest bidder.

She's the "responsible" choice.

My only hope now is that Trump supporters live up to their reputation and BECOME violent.

damikesc said...

Oh please Damikesc. So if you want to get rid of a judge on your case you accuse him of not being able to be impartial because he is of a certain opinion, or ethnicity, or gender?

How the hell can you work a computer with an IQ below room temperature.

I cannot explain it monosyllabically enough for you to POSSIBLY follow. Continue demonstrating that you're an imbecile for all to see.

But it's good to see you're pro-Klansmen in the judiciary. I'd think it's a bad idea --- but I'm also now a low-level functional retard.

Anglelyne said...

"But according to Drezner, "hawk-dove distinctions" don't "really work" and are "pretty useless." He seems to like the idea of replacing "hawk" and "dove" with Hamiltonian, Wilsonian, Jacksonian, and Jeffersonian."

Which also "don't 'really work'". Labels tend not to be very illuminating when shoe-horned into arguments premised on unthinking acceptance of a prevailing consensus/conventional wisdom.

Miriam said...

So Trump couldn't get a fair hearing from a Muslim judge, a female judge, a disabled judge, a veteran POW judge, an African American judge (unless he was one of those who belonged to Trump, like the one he called "my African American"). Just who hasn't Trump insulted? Maybe he needs a white supremacist judge, yeah that's the ticket.

Curious George said...

"Miriam said...
Oh please Damikesc. So if you want to get rid of a judge on your case you accuse him of not being able to be impartial because he is of a certain opinion, or ethnicity, or gender? Pick your poison, now you get to judge shop? Your comment is particularily dumb."

Don't double down on dumb. Trump wanting a different judge, because of the judges affiliation with La Raza, does not mean he wants to judge shop. Show me anywhere where Trump has indicated he wants a specific judge.

Miriam said...

Damikesc, your intellect is not impressive. Your reasoning is faulty, you rationalize Trump's blatant attack on a federal judge, you should just vote for him, as you are as Trumpian as the rest of the morons here.

Miriam said...

Monkey boy, don't you have some fleas to groom on your ass?

Curious George said...

"Miriam said...
So Trump couldn't get a fair hearing from a Muslim judge, a female judge, a disabled judge, a veteran POW judge, an African American judge (unless he was one of those who belonged to Trump, like the one he called "my African American"). Just who hasn't Trump insulted? Maybe he needs a white supremacist judge, yeah that's the ticket."

See now you're just making moronic strawman arguments. For the last time, the issue is the judges involvement in La Raza.

Anglelyne said...

damikesc: No more being nice to idiots who keep making the same false "observation". You're either an idiot or a troll and should be treated as such.

I don't think idiots deserve the same treatment as trolls. It's not their fault that they're stupid. But there's no point in engaging them, since they're too stupid to know that they're stupid. Miriam is obviously not a troll.

But it's good to see you're pro-Klansmen in the judiciary. I'd think it's a bad idea --- but I'm also now a low-level functional retard.

See what happens when you act as if anybody as dumb as the person you're addressing could actually understand your point?

(Sorry couldn't resist; that was a very funny typo.)

Miriam said...

"Anyway, in addition to Trump’s overtly racist attack on Curiel, in which Trump explicitly said that Curiel cannot be trusted to rule fairly on any case involving Trump or any of his companies solely on the basis of his Mexican heritage, both Trump and certain lazy/dishonest conservative bloggers have attempted to affiliate Curiel with “La Raza.”

What they are attempting to do is associate Curiel with the National Council of La Raza, the radical left-wing and pro-illegal-immigration group that has gained significant notoriety in the news over the years as a group that is both anti-American and open to fomenting violent pro-immigration protests.

Curiel, however, has no affiliation with this group whatsoever. He is a member of La Raza Lawyers of California – aka the Latino Bar Association of California. They have absolutely no affiliation with National Council of La Raza. As far as I can tell, they appear to be a pretty garden variety special interest lawyers association. Every state has these chapters for Hispanic lawyers, black lawyers, women lawyers, Mormon lawyers, Christian lawyers, Jewish lawyers – you name it, there is a lawyer association for it in every state. They have meetings, everyone comes and eat lunch together, and they serve pretty much exclusively the function of networking, which is the lifeblood of legal business generation.

Maybe you find the existence of these groups distasteful and tacky, but that’s a separate point. The point is, no, Judge Curiel is not a member of or affiliated with the radical leftwing group that conservatives have come to know and hate, in spite of the surface level similarity of name."

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/06/03/dishonest-attempt-associate-gonzalo-curiel-la-raza/

What dumbasses you are.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@ Miriam

So if you want to get rid of a judge on your case you accuse him of not being able to be impartial because he is of a certain opinion, or ethnicity, or gender? Pick your poison, now you get to judge shop?

Yes. Yes you do. That is exactly how it is done and has been done many many many times. If you can show that the judge has bias against you personally, against your case or shows other instances of not being impartial, you can get the judge to be recused and get a different judge.

You don't get to 'shop' and pick your own favorite judge, but you do get to have one who is biased removed.

Miriam said...

No Dusty Queen, that is not how it's done. Obviously you have no legal background whatsoever. One cannot simply say their judge is biased and get a new one. Wouldn't that be nice, judge shopping taken to a new level.

damikesc said...

Damikesc, your intellect is not impressive.

Didn't anticipate you'd get it.

Your reasoning is faulty, you rationalize Trump's blatant attack on a federal judge, you should just vote for him, as you are as Trumpian as the rest of the morons here.

Again, you're pro-Klansmen in the judiciary. Nice to know.

damikesc said...

One cannot simply say their judge is biased and get a new one.

A black defendant couldn't get a new judge appointed if they had a white judge who was an active Klan member?

You REALLY want to argue that, sweetie?

Miriam said...

I'm sure the judge wouldn't openly belong to the Klan dumbiesc. The Red Stae article stated clearly that this federal judge does not belong to La Raza.

traditionalguy said...

In January 1815, Jackson had arrested a New Orleans merchant who had defied his authority to declare Martial Law during the invasion . A local Federal Judge, corrupt to the hilt as most Judges, ordered Jackson arrested for contempt of Court for not responding to his Habeas Corpus Order. Jackson explained in written response that he would not attend Court until after the British Empire's invasion was defeated, because otherwise any Judge could order the Americans to leave their defense line on the day of Battle to attend court, thus defeating Americans by using law suits in their court system as a weapon.

After Jackson lifted Martial Law because the British Empire Force had been wiped out, then Jackson went before the Court. He stood moot and made no defense. The corrupt Judge fined him $1,000.

There is a reason Juries are our only hope for any justice. All Judges are Political to the core, all of the time.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

No Dusty Queen, that is not how it's done. Obviously you have no legal background whatsoever. One cannot simply say their judge is biased and get a new one. Wouldn't that be nice, judge shopping taken to a new level.

Hi Miriam ;-)

No....that IS how it is done. You have some reading comprehension problems. You should work on that. I said you have to "show" the bias as in: it is more than just your claim.

First you make the claim of bias, you say the judge is biased. Then you get to prove the bias. If you can't prove it, well, at least you tried and now you have a very irritated judge. Therefore you should only go this route if you are very sure of your claim.

Trump is on step one. Whether he will prevail in the court, is yet to be seen. However, in the court of opinion, he seems to be doing rather well.

Good job,though, in distracting from Hillary's non substantive foreign policy speech which contained no statements of what her foreign policy would be and was just an attack on Trump. What IS Hillary's foreign policy program?

Saint Croix said...

Donald Trump’s ideas aren’t just different — they are dangerously incoherent. They’re not even really ideas — just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds and outright lies.

He is not just unprepared — he is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility.

This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes — because it’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin.


For some reason, this reminds me of when I had a driver's permit, and I was just starting to drive a car. One time, early in this process, I was driving down the road. And I was too far to the right. Maybe because I am a Republican? Although at the time I wasn't registered at all, I was just 15. But I was definitely too far to the right. And I kept running over the metal drains on the side of the road, right next to the curb. It was like this. CLANK. CLANK. CLANK.

Mom: "Taylor, you are too far to the right."

Taylor: "No, I'm fine."

CLANK. CLANK. CLANK.

See, I wanted a couple of feet on the left hand side of the road, because those cars were coming right at me, and I didn't want to hit them in a head on collision. And I knew I wasn't hitting the curb. Because when you hit the curb, the car goes up in the air and it's bad. But that wasn't happening. So I was okay with hitting the drains. Hey, I was learning, damn it.

CLANK. CLANK. CLANK.

Meanwhile, my mom, who is a very happy and sweet woman who gets her way all the time, God knows how, is a little stressed out that I am too far over to the right. I've pretty much hit six or nine, maybe twelve drains in a row at this point.

"Taylor, you are--"

CLANK.

"--too far--"

CLANK.

"--to the right!"

CLANK.

And my brother in the backseat, who was about 12, and had no confidence in my driving abilities, says, "He's going to kill us all!"

Miriam said...

No attempts to distract from Hillary's speech, Dusty, in which she succinctly told America why Trump is completely unsuited to be the President of the most powerful nation on earth. She said exactly what we were waiting to hear her say and she said it amazingly well.

Blogger Lydia said...yesterday on another Clinton speech thread.
"On Trump, from Hillary's speech:

This is a man who said that more countries should have nuclear weapons, including Saudi Arabia.

This is someone who has threatened to abandon our allies in NATO – the countries that work with us to root out terrorists abroad before they strike us at home.

He believes we can treat the U.S. economy like one of his casinos and default on our debts to the rest of the world, which would cause an economic catastrophe far worse than anything we experienced in 2008.

He has said that he would order our military to carry out torture and the murder of civilians who are related to suspected terrorists – even though those are war crimes.

He says he doesn’t have to listen to our generals or our admirals, our ambassadors and other high officials, because he has – quote – “a very good brain.”

He also said, “I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me.” You know what? I don’t believe him.

He says climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese, and he has the gall to say that prisoners of war like John McCain aren’t heroes.

He praises dictators like Vladimir Putin and picks fights with our friends – including the British prime minister, the mayor of London, the German chancellor, the president of Mexico and the Pope.

He says he has foreign policy experience because he ran the Miss Universe pageant in Russia.

And to top it off, he believes America is weak. An embarrassment. He called our military a disaster. He said we are – and I quote – a “third-world country.” And he’s been saying things like that for decades.

She'll do just fine in a debate with him with ammunition like that."

6/3/16, 2:44 PM

Miriam said...

"As president, defending our values and keeping us safe will be my top priority. That includes maintaining a cutting-edge military, strengthening our alliances, cultivating new partners, standing up to aggressors, defeating ISIS, and enforcing the Iran nuclear agreement."

Hillary Clinton

Miriam said...

“We can be strong and smart without advocating torture or bigotry. We will not let fear dictate our foreign policy.”

Hillary Clinton

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@ Miriam

We know what Hillary said about Trump.

What is Hillary's foreign policy agenda? What is she planning to do as President on the issues of Lybia, Syria? How is she planning to deal with North Korea, Russia, China? How does she feel about the military and use of or non use of military personnel? What is her feeling on NATO? TTP? Anything? Bueller? Bueller?

Crickets.........

Mary Beth said...

Miriam said...

Did Jackson also dismiss federal judges for being of Mexican descent? So statesmanlike. So Presidential.

6/4/16, 9:54 AM


Right? What was he doing, criticizing a judge during a regular speech. It's only presidential if you criticize judges during the SOTU address.

Miriam said...

Here, I made it easy for you Dusty. Hillary Clinton's Foreign Policy.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Miriam,
", in which Trump explicitly said that Curiel cannot be trusted to rule fairly on any case involving Trump or any of his companies solely on the basis of his Mexican heritage, "

How is that different from Sotomayor claiming there was a need for a wise Latina on the Supreme Court? It's just the other side of the same coin.

shiloh said...

Foreign policy analysis of Hillary's speech aside, she has dominated the news cycle the past couple days. Mission accomplished!

ok, Trump's been in the media as well and it's all been negative. Scrutiny of any kind being a touchy subject for the donald. To say he is thin skinned would be too generous.

>

It's all minutiae anyway until after the conventions when swing voters start payin' attention.

Bottom line, Hillary looked presidential, whereas the donald not so much.

damikesc said...

Curiel is a member of La Raza Lawyers of San Diego, a Hispanic KKK. So you're wrong again.

And you keep quoting what she says about others. Her policy led to ISIS and the global refugee crisis. She helped give Iran nukes.

Nothing Trump could dream of would be worse than her inept attempts.

TCom said...

Miriam has no problem with a judge being a member of a group called "The Race".

I'm sure that line of attack will play well. Keep it up.

mockturtle said...

Shouldn't Trump also get America-great-empire-of-liberty-mythologizing, white-yeoman-defending, anti-muzzie pasha-busting Jefferson?

That's what I was thinking.

tim in vermont said...

Shorter Hillary: I promise this time I won't fuck up like I did every other time you trusted me in the past!

I would love to see a defense of her performance. We all know Democrats can write pretty promises.

Theodore James said...

I get the feeling that Miriam is one of Hillary's! hired trolls that we have been hearing about. The vague language, the talking points so perfectly aligned to a script that sounds as if it were being spoken by Hillary in her horrible, stilted and vague way.
Miriam have you ever had an original thought or are you only allowed by contract to parrot the Clinton campaign's talking points when visiting comment sections?

shiloh said...

"Miriam have you ever had an original thought or are you only allowed by contract to parrot the Clinton campaign's talking points"

Rich coming from a 95/5 con echo chamber. Recapping, here's the political wisdom spewed forth the past 8 years at Althouse ~ Obama sucks and is the worst president ever. Hillary sucks, maybe as much as Obama but were not sure yet.

Trump sucks and is a frickin' disaster, but he's our guy er the only "Rep" fool left standing so were going to apologize/rationalize our disaster to the bitter end.

>

And DBQ, please refresh us re: all of Trump's ever changing political policies. Rhetorical. Again, he's making it up as he goes along like most clueless chameleons.

Crickets indeed!

buwaya puti said...

Shiloh, are you prepared to argue substance?
Such as the disastrous effect of the current regulatory regime.
Being expanded by your allies.
You jump around sneering while people like me have to keep the system working in spite of that. And each bit wears out, each bit degrades, each system keeps getting more expensive to run, failure rates increase because resources are constantly being diverted to "compliance". But you are merely ignorant and irresponsible. I see the real world.

traditionalguy said...

The Trump disaster sure is slow in coming. Maybe it is like Global Warming... So horrible that we have to wait forever for it to start.

Or it may wait and start after the Wall goes up and the Pope's Muslim refugee friends finish IED School.

Timing is everything.

shiloh said...

bp, you're an integral part of the echo chamber and as such you're one of the biggest whiners. Congrats!

And speaking of ignorant, do you really believe a con echo chamber at a small blog arguing among themselves will have any effect on the political process?

I would ask what you do on a daily basis to improve the political process, but you're not even an American. There must not be any political problems in whatever country you are from.

Mentioned this to you before that I'm glad you found a home at a very small con blog on the net. One would think a person of your vast and lofty intellect would have higher ambitions.

You must enjoy the daily minutiae that only Althouse can provide.

J. Farmer said...

This is the same crap Walter Russell Meade wrote about more than a decade ago when he was hyper enthusiastic for American global hegemony and endless military interventionism. Basically, it's okay when America gets lots of innocent people killed because we're just lovable, well-intended giants. "Oh, we just totally wrecked your country and turned it into an ungovernable, anarchic hellhole? Oops, our bad! No hard feelings, right?"

n.n said...

And then there are Nobel Laureate levels of conflict and anti-native policies.

buwaya puti said...

My higher ambition is to retire and live on a beach, assuming my wife is agreeable, which she isnt so far.
Shiloh, this blog is just an amusement. IRL I deal with real things, which I dont have the talent to isolate away. I truly wonder at the mentality of such as yourself though, who seem to have it down, where reality does not intrude, even to the extent that you cannot discuss it.
What impact do public policies have on your life, really and truly, actual daily things? In my case they keep me enraged daily, no blog needed. Things done badly, waste and abuse, inefficiency and corruption.
What are you really, outside the sneering persona? Is there an honest mind there, with actual ideas, with an original thought, with an interest in something, anything?

cubanbob said...

Hillary should be elected on her alleged foreign affairs expertise? Perhaps Miriam and Shiloh may have overlooked that Hillary! received her 3am wake up call and proceeded to do nothing for 13 hours. Then she blamed a filmmaker and a film no one saw for her failures. And Trump is the dangerous one? Trump under normal circumstances wouldn't even be in the running but then again no one with Clinton's corruption, criminality and treason would ever have been put in any office of public trust nevermind be a candidate for president. The Trumpy has going for him, no matter how bad he looks, Clinton always looks worse. No matter how bad one thinks Trumpy could govern with Clinton we already have a history of worse actions.

rcocean said...

Drezner wants to get rid of the "Hawk and Dove" distinction because Hillary is a "Hawk" - which loses her votes.

I've always found Drezner incredibly predictable and boring. Take the DC conventional wisdom on any subject, exclude anything that the dullest WaPo or NYT editor would find edgy or different, and you got a Drezner opinion.

shiloh said...

"Shiloh, this blog is just an amusement."

"In my case they keep me enraged daily, no blog needed."

An amusement my ass as all your replies to me present bogus life and death scenarios that has you in tears.

Total contradiction aside, you're as phony as the day is long.

>

Whereas, as stated many times, I'm here for the entertainment value of seeing a sore loser/the sky is falling con majority moan, groan, complain about their futility re: winning the presidency.

Indeed, if Reps would just nominate a true conservative yada yada yada ...

Rhythm and Balls said...

The first is — as I suspect you know — it was mainly an attack on Donald Trump. He's "dangerously incoherent," etc. We get it, but what does that tell us about Clinton's foreign policy?

It doesn't fucking matter. All things being equal you want a sane person deciding policy before you'd have a lunatic doing it. Details are secondary to that. Is our pundit class really that fucking dumb and out of touch?

Miriam said...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/elizabeth-warren-donald-trump-attacks-223900#

Donald Trump is an “insecure moneygrubber,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren told the assembled Democrats of Massachusetts at the state’s party convention Saturday.

He is also, according to Warren's prepared remarks: Scary, loud, outrageous, offensive, small, a failure and fraudster-in-chief.

“It was like a used car dealership—except that’s not fair to used car dealerships,” Warren said of Trump University. “His playbook said to look for people with problems; they make good targets.”

“These were ordinary folks who were targeted because they had problems and Trump saw they were vulnerable and he could make a buck,” she continued. “Here’s a man who builds a business to profit off other peoples’ pain. He wants to be Commander in Chief, but he’s only qualified to be Fraudster-in-Chief.”"

Between Clinton and Warren, Trump is being eviserated. And this is only the beginning

Rhythm and Balls said...

Haheh. Too bad it couldn't have been Warren instead of Hillary. Warren actually has the credibility Hillary lacks when it comes to integrity. If Hillary's able to make the case that she's more trustworthy than Trump, starting by building off the case that she's less of a lunatic (if not that much less narcissistic, unfortunately), then that will have been an accomplishment and a rightful electoral win. But I do think that part of the appeal is that she's starting from such a low personal bar, and working against someone whose personal bar is not that all that much lower. The parties seemed intent this year on running the two people with the highest unfavorables in history, for some reason. Hope it turns out well.

Miriam said...

Our country depends on it turning out well, with Clinton there is at least a chance, with Trump there is no chance of a good outcome. Warren and Sanders have pulled Clinton in the correct direction. We need more like them.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Yes, I agree.

buwaya puti said...

Shiloh, you are getting upset.
I suggest a productive and educational exercise:
Propose a debate, on some substansive matter of public policy, some important area of regulation, or suchlike. Submit a topic statement and construct an argument pro or con. Then invite rebuttals, and respond to rebuttals, with substance - data, analysis, history, etc., not including third party opinions or articles, unless they are by experts on a specific point of expertise. Then we will see what you are made of.

buwaya puti said...

To Miriam and R&B, I propose the same.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Lol. Is that what would make you happy, bouillabaisse? Too bad that's not going to happen.

Just re-align your perspective to one that actually conforms with reality, instead. You'll be much happier. And so will we.

buwaya puti said...

R&B, why not?
Too lazy to argue correctly?
Not up to it?
Scared?

buwaya puti said...

I was taught to argue (and to learn to argue is to learn to think) by mere Christian Brothers, not Jesuits, so in my case you are up against the intramural team, not the pros., if that matters.

But one must consider the quality of the rest of the people here though; many are truly impressive in their fields, real debate could bring out fascinating things.

DanTheMan said...

>> Warren actually has the credibility Hillary lacks when it comes to integrity


Integrity? Like taking advantage of affirmative action by claiming to be American Indian, when she's whiter than Frosty the Snowman?

Like denouncing banks for shady mortgage practices, and then making hundreds of thousands of dollars flipping houses, in one case making a 300% profit?

Like writing a book telling people that house flipping is a bad financial move, while flipping houses herself?

Integrity? No, I don't think so.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Arguing with the ever self-righteous bouillabaisse is like arguing with someone from Bizarro World. But he has every right to make ridiculous insinuations about why anyone would think that. I guess it's just what his "Christian Brothers" taught him to do.

I guess he must think it beats arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Integrity? No, I don't think so.

You're partially right. Leave out the "so" at the end and your sentence would have been both complete, and more accurate.

Other than that, good job picking at nits. It's always enjoyable to hear the view from inside the Republican bubble.

And I do like your real estate advice and views on integrity, Party of Trump foot soldier.

Cacimbo Cacimbo said...

Bill Clinton bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan to distract from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Hillary has a long history of destroying Bill's sexual victims and sexual partners. If Bill was to make some moves on President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović would Hillary bomb Crotia to silence her?

Achilles said...

Miriam said...

"Your reasoning is faulty, you rationalize Trump's blatant attack on a federal judge, you should just vote for him, as you are as Trumpian as the rest of the morons here."

This particular judge was a member of "La Raza." You don't need to call a member of la raza racist. It is implied in the name.

Anyone who thinks that judges at any level, but particularly the federal level, are not completely political animals is the idiot. This particular Judge found a reason to unseal testimony in an ongoing case that has not gone to jury yet. Why would you do that?

Achilles said...

Rhythm and Balls said...

"Warren actually has the credibility Hillary lacks when it comes to integrity."

Warren got rich flipping houses she bought from banks after they took them from poor people using money she made at jobs she got because she pretended to be native american. When she was not working at jobs she lied to get she was practicing law without a license.

Warren has no integrity whatsoever.

Achilles said...

Rhythm and Balls said...

'\"You're partially right. Leave out the "so" at the end and your sentence would have been both complete, and more accurate. "

You should be embarrassed. A rich white woman took advantage of a program meant to help disadvantaged minorities. The only reason you give her a pass is because you agree with her politically.

shiloh said...

"In my case they keep me enraged daily, no blog needed."

"Shiloh, you are getting upset."

So you are upset daily and trying to project your gobbledygook onto others. Indeed, as you don't have a reading comprehension problem, rather you're just a wannabe masterbaiter.

I suggest you find another blog because libs here are a minute minority. Unless you, like most other cons here, enjoy the coziness of a devout conservative echo chamber. Strength in #s notwithstanding, you could troll a lot better if there were more available targets, eh.

Just trying to be helpful ...

buwaya puti said...

Christian Brothers - thats the order founded by St Jean Baptiste De La Salle, who invented public education as we know it. No need for quotes. Its schools are bread-and-butter in the Catholic education heirarchy, in most places.
The word "bizarre" comes from the Basque of my ancestors. I love the bizarre. You have some talent in that regard, you certainly could develop it. Laslo is a natural.
Argument, however. You interest me. You have abilities you misuse, which annoys me. You could be so much better with a little work and correct exercise. I suspect this may help in your non-commenting career as well.
Buwaya is the Tagalog for crocodile. You could make a bouillabaise out of crocodile I suppose, but thats probably not the best use of it. I have had crocodile tapa, which suits it better as its very lean - marinade and lightly fry in thin slices. Much as you would cook dog in fact.

buwaya puti said...

Shiloh, I am trying to improve the tone. I think that what is needed here is not only more libs, but BETTER libs. So my goal is to make you better, to give you an incentive to stretch and expand your abilities.

shiloh said...

bp, it's good to have goals as maybe you should team up w/Althouse to set up a daily political curriculum for those not as fortunate as yourself.

shiloh said...

btw, I went to a Jesuit hs, so if I annoy you ... you know who to blame.

buwaya puti said...

Well there you go Shiloh, a place to start.
I am not fortunate, as far as that goes.
You, on the other hand, are very lucky.
The internet is a wonderful thing, as are used bookstores.
Education is cheap. The only thing you need that isnt free or very cheap, is someone and someplace to argue, upon which to sharpen your blade. That, unfortunately, in this modern world, is a rare thing, which can no longer be purchased at any price, not even in an excellent university, anymore. You can do that here, however.

shiloh said...

bp, remembering a quote from hs Theology class, that applies to political blogs:

Mothers and children are dying in Biafra and Bangladesh so let's form a discussion group!

Indeed as keyboard commandos are gonna change the world ...

buwaya puti said...

That seems like it was a remarkably bad theology class. Are you sure they were Jesuits? Sounds more like nuns.
No, the reason to have a "discussion group" isnt for someone elses welfare, but your own. At worst, we amuse each other. Let us, at least, amuse each other better. At best?

narciso said...

well one happened in the 60s, and the 70s,

Rhythm and Balls said...

I really regret not being around earlier to watch Achilles come along and make more points that no one cares about.

Saint Croix said...

Hillary has gone nuclear on Donnie. She did it really early! We've got six months to go.

LBJ went nuclear on Goldwater, but he did it in September, 1964.

You can see the ad here.

Note how the ad does not mention Goldwater by name. It's a vicious attack ad, of course! But Johnson says we must "love each other."

Note also that Dr. Strangelove came out in January 1964. So you had a whole year of people thinking, in a comical way, of nuclear annihilation. And then you have this somber and serious plea for people to vote for "love" and Lyndon Johnson.

I can imagine all the flower children voting for Johnson, and not that mean Barry Goldwater. And then they were shocked and appalled that Johnson took us into the Vietnam war. "Hey, hey, LBJ. How many kids did you kill today?" Maybe a lot of the riots and upsets of the 1960's is due to the betrayal that people felt about Johnson's Daisy ad.

shiloh said...

Saint Croix, you aren't seriously comparing 1964 to 2016?

ok, many Republicans would rather live in the past when older white men decided presidential elections.

Yea, I had a transistor radio in '64. Media has changed a tad the past (52) years.

One of the positive changes is political tv ads aren't that effective anymore, especially with moderate independents who decide elections.

DanTheMan said...

R&B asserted that Warren has integrity.
I gave some counter examples that show she has acted on multiple occasions without integrity.

The response was name calling.

Those who asset Warren has integrity should either explain how a person with integrity acts as she does, or show that the events claimed did not happen.

I agree with Shiloh that someone is not thinking.




Saint Croix said...

Saint Croix, you aren't seriously comparing 1964 to 2016?

No, Shiloh, my point is that Hillary is doing that. Specifically, she's reaching back to the highly successful campaign against Goldwater and is seeking to frame Donald Trump as untrustworthy with the nuclear launch codes.

ok, many Republicans would rather live in the past when older white men decided presidential elections.

What year are you in now? I am having trouble following your time travel. Is 1964 the year that older white men decided presidential elections? Are you sure?

p.s. We can debate 1864 if you want to! I'm a Republican and I know what a person is. Do you?

Saint Croix said...

hey Donnie!

If you need some hints on going positive, you might try visiting some neonatal intensive care units, and wake people up to the humanity of tiny babies.

Or you can keep on with the threat of the brown menace. Your choice, buddy!

shiloh said...

"We can debate 1864 if you want to!"

Indeed, Reps would love it to be 1864 when females and most minorities weren't allowed to vote. Democracy at its zenith ...

Saint Croix said...

Reps would love it to be 1864 when females and most minorities weren't allowed to vote.

I'm proud of the Republican party in 1864!

Rhythm and Balls said...

If an Oklahoman asserting the very regionally common Native American Indian family history that her family mistakenly believed they had is the worst instance of someone's "corruption" you can identify, then you really are living in an alternative reality and not worth taking seriously.

Ditto flipping property.

narciso said...

she's an intellectual fraud, her scholarship on bankruptcy, a personal fraud, misrepresenting herself as native america, a fraud denouncing housing speculation, and as a superdelegates, she's also a fraud,

tim in vermont said...

There are two big problems: Libya and Syria.

tim in vermont said...

If an Oklahoman asserting the very regionally common Native American Indian family history that her family mistakenly believed they had is the worst instance of someone's "corruption" you can identify, then you really are living in an alternative reality and not worth taking seriously.

Well, she did ride it all the way to the Harvard Law faculty, where she is by far the least qualified in terms of ranking of the law school she graduated from, professor on the faculty there. Harvard bragged about having a Native American on that faculty, but they refuse to identify that person. I wonder how the Native American who didn't get that job feels about it?

Even you, with your limited analytical skills, could see through her "scholarship" on bankruptcy, the statistics of which were massaged to produce headlines, not an accurate reflection of reality. That is the big problem with Obamacare, no Democrat wanted to look at reality, now it's a giant clusterfuck.