Hillary vs. Carson?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Zmk EB wrote:

If you can prove me wrong on anything that I posted I will gladly admit… [/quote]

Well, that’s interesting - are you willing to admit you cut the quoted sentence in order to change its meaning to support your attack on Obama? That Smh23 pointed out above?

Yes? Admit it?

[/quote]

Firstly, I don’t read smh’s posts so I don’t know what you are referring to. But, if I have erred I will admit it.

Now are you willing to admit that you dodged our previous line by line exchange and rebooted because you had no answers for the multitude of responses that came from me?
[/quote]

A positively Clinton’s dodge. Nice try. But here is what we need some contrition on:

You said

“Sizing up the man who would become his boss, his first job after college: ‘There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself maybe. And white’”

To which Smh23 responded, catching you with a selective edit:

"Why do you make it soÃ? easy? You cut the sentence offÃ? halfway throughÃ? (do you realize how dishonest this is? How stupid? How utterly full of shit you are?). It actually reads, “And white – he’d said himself that that was a problem.” They were discussing the white guy’s own qualms about trying to organize blacks as an outsider with no social or cultural or economic ties to poor black neighborhoods.Ã? "

Read it that time, chief?

So, you admit to cutting the sentence on purpose (and removing the unhelpful context) to suit your claim?

Yes? Or no?

[/quote]

No, But I did glean that particular quote from a web site. I should have fact checked it and I did not given my time constraints. That is totally my responsibility, I do apologize.

Now on to the post that you neglected. Scroll back and answer it line for line. As this is what we had been doing until you attempted to reboot by ignoring the post and beginning again.

And do you admit that you dodged my post because you had no good answers at the time?

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Hilary doesn’t have to lie.[/quote]

Your post are always entertaining to read. [/quote]

Good to hear. Read the rest. In regard to international affairs, Carson isn’t even a dilettante, but a fool of the highest (and most dangerous) order.

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
We all would. By that I mean that Carson would be savaged in a foreign policy debate against Clinton, and would lose the election, and we’d all be taking Hillary over Ben, like it or not.
[/quote]

How do win a debate when your opponent gets to lie about everything, and never get called out for it?

Especially when you’re trying to clarify petty bullshit that happened 50+ years ago?

[/quote]

There would be no need for lying. Carson doesn’t have a 100-level understanding of foreign policy. Clinton does, and the contrast would be severe. Anyone who can’t see this is deluded.

^ Hugh Hewitt, in the gentlest way he could possibly convey such an insult, compared Carson’s foreign policy deficiencies to those of Sarah Palin. No need for further comment.

Technically, Hillary does not have to lie. That’s what the media is for.

The salient point is that Carson and Trump are foreign policy minnows while Hilary is a foreign policy shark. To point out this plainly evident fact is not an endorsement of Clinton; it is an acknowledgement of reality. As a GOP strategist points out, “We?re potentially careening down this road of nominating somebody who frankly isn?t fit to be president in terms of the basic ability and temperament to do the job. It?s not just that it could be somebody Hillary could destroy electorally, but what if Hillary hits a banana peel and this person becomes president?” Anyway you cut it, a Carson or Trump nomination will do significant damage to the GOP brand. The party will be slapped across the board a la Barry Goldwater in 1964 or George McGovern in 1972.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Zmk EB wrote:

If you can prove me wrong on anything that I posted I will gladly admit… [/quote]

Well, that’s interesting - are you willing to admit you cut the quoted sentence in order to change its meaning to support your attack on Obama? That Smh23 pointed out above?

Yes? Admit it?

[/quote]

Firstly, I don’t read smh’s posts so I don’t know what you are referring to. But, if I have erred I will admit it.

Now are you willing to admit that you dodged our previous line by line exchange and rebooted because you had no answers for the multitude of responses that came from me?
[/quote]

A positively Clinton’s dodge. Nice try. But here is what we need some contrition on:

You said

“Sizing up the man who would become his boss, his first job after college: ‘There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself maybe. And white’”

To which Smh23 responded, catching you with a selective edit:

"Why do you make it soÃ??Ã? easy? You cut the sentence offÃ??Ã? halfway throughÃ??Ã? (do you realize how dishonest this is? How stupid? How utterly full of shit you are?). It actually reads, “And white – he’d said himself that that was a problem.” They were discussing the white guy’s own qualms about trying to organize blacks as an outsider with no social or cultural or economic ties to poor black neighborhoods.Ã??Ã? "

Read it that time, chief?

So, you admit to cutting the sentence on purpose (and removing the unhelpful context) to suit your claim?

Yes? Or no?

[/quote]

No, But I did glean that particular quote from a web site. I should have fact checked it and I did not given my time constraints. That is totally my responsibility, I do apologize.

Now on to the post that you neglected. Scroll back and answer it line for line. As this is what we had been doing until you attempted to reboot by ignoring the post and beginning again.

And do you admit that you dodged my post because you had no good answers at the time?[/quote]

Helpful to know that’s how you collate and use information from websites - lazy, sloppy, and partisan. As a result, your credibility is shot.

And no, I don’t admit to “dodging” your posts because I had no “good answers” at the time - if you read above you’ll see exactly why I am not going line by line with you - time is limited, and I don’t want to waste any more time on your posts.

And more besides - after this most recent episode where you, re, forgot to fact check the website you’re pulling information from, I sure as Hell (1) don’t have much faith in your content and (2) don’t have time to fact check all the stuff you produce.

In economic terms, the opportunity cost of going line by line on your arguments isn’t worth my time. I’m sure you understand.

[quote]Bismark wrote:
The salient point is that Carson and Trump are foreign policy minnows while Hilary is a foreign policy shark. To point out this plainly evident fact is not an endorsement of Clinton; it is an acknowledgement of reality. As a GOP strategist points out, “We?re potentially careening down this road of nominating somebody who frankly isn?t fit to be president in terms of the basic ability and temperament to do the job. It?s not just that it could be somebody Hillary could destroy electorally, but what if Hillary hits a banana peel and this person becomes president?” Anyway you cut it, a Carson or Trump nomination will do significant damage to the GOP brand. The party will be slapped across the board a la Barry Goldwater in 1964 or George McGovern in 1972.[/quote]

A lack of foreign policy experience did not prevent the election of Barack Obama, he just talked all purdy n’ shit and he won the hearts and minds of the people.

In 2012, during what looked like a struggling reelection, he cracked a few jokes about Romney’s concerns with Russia, when in fact Romney was probably more right than wrong.

In short, should Carson win, any struggle with foreign policy he encounters can always be attributed to simple racism toward a black president.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Helpful to know that’s how you collate and use information from websites - lazy, sloppy, and partisan. As a result, your credibility is shot.[/quote]

One more sweeping assumption on your part. One quote does not an argument make. You have never made even one mistake before? “No no that’s it Zeb erred I’m done that’s it leaving the debate.” Yet, funny how you had left the debate long before the error. You rebooted and tried to begin again a few posts back. Ha ha by the way you forget I’ve been around here for 10 years or so I’ve seen your errors.

Also, What about the rest of the post that you dodged? You tried to reboot this debate before that particular misquote. You had no intentions of answering me And that destroys your credibility. One can easily make a mistake but you are outright running away from our previous line by line debate. And you do so for good reason. That reason is you have no answers.

Of course you don’t admit to dodging my line by line post that would take character which you lack. You didn’t want to answer it because it just takes too much time. Yet, you have time to post this drivel. I see…we all see.

As I said above that was one quote one time. What about all of the other irrefutable factual information that I posted? Funny, you had time before but now you just don’t have it. Odd how that worked out for you.

[quote]In economic terms, the opportunity cost of going line by line on your arguments isn’t worth my time. I’m sure you understand.
[/quote]

Yes I understand. Extending your economic example, you are not willing to put anymore money into your losing business so you’re closing up shop-GOT IT.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Of course you don’t admit to dodging my line by line post that would take character which you lack.
[/quote]

That’s an interesting accusation given your continued avoidance of admitting your complete and utter face-plant in regard to the Iran nuclear deal; that is, your claim that Iran was given the right to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, which is demonstrably and irrefutably false.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Foreign Policy. Foreign policy. Foreign policy (Henry Kissinger appears). Hilary doesn’t have to lie. She’s far and away the most experienced and learned candidate in the discipline. [/quote]

Lets remember that experience doesn’t mean mastery or even adequacy. Just because she has done something doesn’t make her good at it. Bernie Madoff is an experienced investor.

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Foreign Policy. Foreign policy. Foreign policy (Henry Kissinger appears). Hilary doesn’t have to lie. She’s far and away the most experienced and learned candidate in the discipline. [/quote]

Lets remember that experience doesn’t mean mastery or even adequacy. Just because she has done something doesn’t make her good at it. Bernie Madoff is an experienced investor.[/quote]

She’s widely regarded by subject matter experts to have been a highly competent SecState. She has an A+ understanding of international relations and American foreign policy. The same can’t be said of Carson or Trump, who aren’t even so much as dilettantes. This isn’t an endorsement of Clinton, it’s a recognition of reality; that is, she has a massive advantage in this area over the current GOP front-runners. Carson and Trump are at the bottom of the barrel in this regard. If the GOP wants an electable candidate or, heaven forbid, keep the aforementioned rank amateurs from becoming CIC, it must do away with the myopic revisionism that has allowed naive outsiders to become the front-runners.

P.S., those who aren’t adequate in this area themselves, that is, the majority of posters in PWI, are hardly in a position to assess the adequacy of another.

So if you’re keeping score, Zeb already got called out on misquoting Obama in support of his attempts at claiming Obama is racist. This misquote was one of the “points” Zeb wanted me to rebut - and all he did was wind up apologizing for, as he put it, relying on some website that got it wrong and his failure to read and check its accuracy.

Which brings me to…Zeb’s other quote from the book he uses in support of his claim that Obama is racist. A few pages ago, Zeb wrote:

[quote]A few quotes from Obama’s book “Dreams of my Father”:

“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”[/quote]

And then cited this quote as a defense of his claim that Obama is intentionally screwing over the Israelis because he is also an anti-Semite.

I read Dreams of My Father. It wasn’t an impressive book in my view, but I didn’t recall the passage Zeb quotes. So I went and looked it up.

There’s a reason I don’t remember it. There is no such quote.

What Obama says in the book is the following:

“In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

Page 261 of said book. There is no such quote.

Nowhere does Obama say what Zeb said he did, that Obama would take the side of Muslims when there was political side-choosing as a result of current events - rather, Obama says that he is meeting with Arab and Pakistani American citizens who are expressing a feeling of insecurity about their civil liberties post-9/11 and that he would not stand for the same kinds of reactions that resulted in Japanese internment camps. The key phrase in context: “they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something.”

Quite obviously, Zeb’s quote is facially incorrect and is a fabrication - he has (or someone he is relying on) has actually fabricated the words on the page and is deceitfully attempting to pass them off as verbatim.

And, irony (and hilarity) alert - Zeb cites this “quote” then lectures me about needing to read up and get learned up on the truth:

I literally laughed out loud.

As if Zeb hasn’t discredited himself enough, quiet obviously, Zeb hasn’t read a damn thing he’s relying on for his idiotic claims. I guess he just hoped I hadn’t actually read the book and also hoped his churlish trash talking would have all of us believe he’d actually read the book himself. Of course, that was a stupid gamble - no one believes Zeb reads much of anything, least of all me. So, bluff called, and Zeb loses. Again.

In addition to that damning evidence of Zeb’s mendacity, like with the other quote Zeb tried to pass off, context was intentionally ignored to try and mislead the reader into thinking Obama had taken a position he had not. Obama is clearly taking the position of a left-liberal civil libertarian in the actual paragraph. He isn’t generally siding with Muslims on matters of policy when there is a choice between choosing between US interests and Muslim interests, nor is he saying he hates Jews - he’s saying he will side with the minorities that are likely to get picked on if, as a result of the war on terror, policy takes an “ugly direction” like internment camps.

So what have we learned? Zeb is thoroughly discredited. Smh23 calls him out on the first misrepresentation - he shuffles some and then says, hey, I didn’t read the website as good as a I should have. But the very quote above in the same litany of quotes Zeb uses to argue his point that Obama is a racist is yet another fraud.

Will Zeb’s response be “just another oopsie! I should have read the website more clearly again.”? At this point, who cares? I don’t believe it, not that I even believed it the first time. But with this, Zeb is all out of the benefit of the doubt - especially since he (again, hilariously) attempts to chide me for “doing some work” and not reading what I am supposed to. We all have to read stuff - but Zeb doesn’t have to, he just gets to pass off misinformation while pretending to actually do anything.

As is, Zeb is a fraud and a hypocrite, and I say those words not as heated insults, but as factual and literal descriptions.

I don’t want to jump, as I’m generally not one for piling on…Honestly, I can’t help but feel a bit of pity, and I hope this will now mercifully end. A call for mercy, yes.

However, I’d really like to know the website these strategically truncated quotes came from. So I can now to immediately dismiss any link from said site in any future debate I find myself. Heck, to avoid it all together in my life.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Foreign Policy. Foreign policy. Foreign policy (Henry Kissinger appears). Hilary doesn’t have to lie. She’s far and away the most experienced and learned candidate in the discipline. [/quote]

Lets remember that experience doesn’t mean mastery or even adequacy. Just because she has done something doesn’t make her good at it. Bernie Madoff is an experienced investor.[/quote]

She’s widely regarded by subject matter experts to have been a highly competent SecState. She has an A+ understanding of international relations and American foreign policy. The same can’t be said of Carson or Trump, who aren’t even so much as dilettantes. This isn’t an endorsement of Clinton, it’s a recognition of reality; that is, she has a massive advantage in this area over the current GOP front-runners. Carson and Trump are at the bottom of the barrel in this regard. If the GOP wants an electable candidate or, heaven forbid, keep the aforementioned rank amateurs from becoming CIC, it must do away with the myopic revisionism that has allowed naive outsiders to become the front-runners.

P.S., those who aren’t adequate in this area themselves, that is, the majority of posters in PWI, are hardly in a position to assess the adequacy of another.[/quote]

You assessed her performance not me.
Hillary’s experience in foreign affairs is a good campaigning tool. She can say, as you all have, “I have experience with foreign diplomats.” The average uninformed voter will take that as: more experience = good. But that is not always the case.
This campaigning tool doesn’t always work. We don’t have to look further than 2008 when McCain said the same thing about Obama not having enough foreign policy experience. Whether it was true or not, the voters didn’t care.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
So if you’re keeping score, Zeb already got called out on misquoting Obama in support of his attempts at claiming Obama is racist. This misquote was one of the “points” Zeb wanted me to rebut - and all he did was wind up apologizing for, as he put it, relying on some website that got it wrong and his failure to read and check its accuracy.

Which brings me to…Zeb’s other quote from the book he uses in support of his claim that Obama is racist. A few pages ago, Zeb wrote:

[quote]A few quotes from Obama’s book “Dreams of my Father”:

“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”[/quote]

And then cited this quote as a defense of his claim that Obama is intentionally screwing over the Israelis because he is also an anti-Semite.

I read Dreams of My Father. It wasn’t an impressive book in my view, but I didn’t recall the passage Zeb quotes. So I went and looked it up.

There’s a reason I don’t remember it. There is no such quote.

What Obama says in the book is the following:

“In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

Page 261 of said book. There is no such quote.

Nowhere does Obama say what Zeb said he did, that Obama would take the side of Muslims when there was political side-choosing as a result of current events - rather, Obama says that he is meeting with Arab and Pakistani American citizens who are expressing a feeling of insecurity about their civil liberties post-9/11 and that he would not stand for the same kinds of reactions that resulted in Japanese internment camps. The key phrase in context: “they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something.”

Quite obviously, Zeb’s quote is facially incorrect and is a fabrication - he has (or someone he is relying on) has actually fabricated the words on the page and is deceitfully attempting to pass them off as verbatim.

And, irony (and hilarity) alert - Zeb cites this “quote” then lectures me about needing to read up and get learned up on the truth:

I literally laughed out loud.

As if Zeb hasn’t discredited himself enough, quiet obviously, Zeb hasn’t read a damn thing he’s relying on for his idiotic claims. I guess he just hoped I hadn’t actually read the book and also hoped his churlish trash talking would have all of us believe he’d actually read the book himself. Of course, that was a stupid gamble - no one believes Zeb reads much of anything, least of all me. So, bluff called, and Zeb loses. Again.

In addition to that damning evidence of Zeb’s mendacity, like with the other quote Zeb tried to pass off, context was intentionally ignored to try and mislead the reader into thinking Obama had taken a position he had not. Obama is clearly taking the position of a left-liberal civil libertarian in the actual paragraph. He isn’t generally siding with Muslims on matters of policy when there is a choice between choosing between US interests and Muslim interests, nor is he saying he hates Jews - he’s saying he will side with the minorities that are likely to get picked on if, as a result of the war on terror, policy takes an “ugly direction” like internment camps.

So what have we learned? Zeb is thoroughly discredited. Smh23 calls him out on the first misrepresentation - he shuffles some and then says, hey, I didn’t read the website as good as a I should have. But the very quote above in the same litany of quotes Zeb uses to argue his point that Obama is a racist is yet another fraud.

Will Zeb’s response be “just another oopsie! I should have read the website more clearly again.”? At this point, who cares? I don’t believe it, not that I even believed it the first time. But with this, Zeb is all out of the benefit of the doubt - especially since he (again, hilariously) attempts to chide me for “doing some work” and not reading what I am supposed to. We all have to read stuff - but Zeb doesn’t have to, he just gets to pass off misinformation while pretending to actually do anything.

As is, Zeb is a fraud and a hypocrite, and I say those words not as heated insults, but as factual and literal descriptions.[/quote]

Nice work of cherry picking two points. Neither were the main thrust of my argument as you well know. If every one of my responses were based upon that web site you could claim victory and I would admit it. But I had 15+ other points totally unrelated to that web site that you now run away from. But cling to the website mistake tightly Mister Reboot because that’s all you have! I’ve already told you that the web site was not reliable and took full responsibility and apologized like a man. But since you have no answer for the other 15 or so points that I laid out in our line by line debate you seek to reboot. You think this scores you points? Ha ha…you look like you are grasping at straws.

This smoke screen of yours is pathetic as are you. Now go back, like a man (you can imitate a man can’t you?) and answer my line by line response to you. Anything short of that is yet another attempt by you to run away from our debate. Just admit that you were wrong on many of those points. You are avoiding them for a reason that’s obvious. Does the great Thunderbolt ever admit that he is wrong? Tell me TB in 10+ years have you ever been wrong? Uh huh…And this is one of them.

TB’s Excuse List (so far) For Not Answering My Line By Line Response

  1. I don’t have the time (yet he continues to respond in other ways -odd for a man with no time)

  2. You stumbled on a bad website which discredits two of your points therefore I win. But what about the other 15 or so points? No answer for them huh TB? LOL

  3. You are just not worth it Zeb. But I am worth this back and forth nonsense? I see TB, we all do. You are running away from our original debate. This is a trick that you’ve used through out the years here on T Nation. I am calling you out on it. The only way you save face is to answer my previous line by line post otherwise you flat out ran away from our debate. Now that’s fine if you want. But call it what it is. Just say “I have no answers Zeb”, or better yet “I was wrong Zeb” Your out of control ego has lead you down the wrong road and now you have no where to go. OUCH…not a good feeling I bet.

I’m starting to know how a teacher feels. What’s your next excuse going to be? “My dog ate my T nation response?”

Excuses, excuses, excuses but still no line by line response…you are indeed pitiful TB.

You can’t continue you just can’t boo hoo.

If your next response is anything other than a response to my line by line post you will be proving once again that you indeed have “the time”. But, you don’t have the correct answers to respond in kind to my line by line post, or perhaps you are not man enough to admit when YOU have made a mistake…and yet you make em just like the rest of us.

Now get busy Mister Reboot.

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Foreign Policy. Foreign policy. Foreign policy (Henry Kissinger appears). Hilary doesn’t have to lie. She’s far and away the most experienced and learned candidate in the discipline. [/quote]

Lets remember that experience doesn’t mean mastery or even adequacy. Just because she has done something doesn’t make her good at it. Bernie Madoff is an experienced investor.[/quote]

She’s widely regarded by subject matter experts to have been a highly competent SecState. She has an A+ understanding of international relations and American foreign policy. The same can’t be said of Carson or Trump, who aren’t even so much as dilettantes. This isn’t an endorsement of Clinton, it’s a recognition of reality; that is, she has a massive advantage in this area over the current GOP front-runners. Carson and Trump are at the bottom of the barrel in this regard. If the GOP wants an electable candidate or, heaven forbid, keep the aforementioned rank amateurs from becoming CIC, it must do away with the myopic revisionism that has allowed naive outsiders to become the front-runners.

P.S., those who aren’t adequate in this area themselves, that is, the majority of posters in PWI, are hardly in a position to assess the adequacy of another.[/quote]

You assessed her performance not me.
Hillary’s experience in foreign affairs is a good campaigning tool. She can say, as you all have, “I have experience with foreign diplomats.” The average uninformed voter will take that as: more experience = good. But that is not always the case.
This campaigning tool doesn’t always work. We don’t have to look further than 2008 when McCain said the same thing about Obama not having enough foreign policy experience. Whether it was true or not, the voters didn’t care.
[/quote]

True; good point. However, if you put someone with experience on stage with someone who is not just inexperienced but actually doesn’t know what the fuck he is talking about, it’ll be much, much different. It isn’t that Carson, e.g., hasn’t been in the room during diplomatic negotiations; it’s that he doesn’t know who’s in NATO. You can get away with the former, but, thankfully, not the latter, which is a recipe for public ruination.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Foreign Policy. Foreign policy. Foreign policy (Henry Kissinger appears). Hilary doesn’t have to lie. She’s far and away the most experienced and learned candidate in the discipline. [/quote]

Lets remember that experience doesn’t mean mastery or even adequacy. Just because she has done something doesn’t make her good at it. Bernie Madoff is an experienced investor.[/quote]

She’s widely regarded by subject matter experts to have been a highly competent SecState. She has an A+ understanding of international relations and American foreign policy. The same can’t be said of Carson or Trump, who aren’t even so much as dilettantes. This isn’t an endorsement of Clinton, it’s a recognition of reality; that is, she has a massive advantage in this area over the current GOP front-runners. Carson and Trump are at the bottom of the barrel in this regard. If the GOP wants an electable candidate or, heaven forbid, keep the aforementioned rank amateurs from becoming CIC, it must do away with the myopic revisionism that has allowed naive outsiders to become the front-runners.

P.S., those who aren’t adequate in this area themselves, that is, the majority of posters in PWI, are hardly in a position to assess the adequacy of another.[/quote]

You are in for a seriously rude awakening when you hit the real world dude, you need to be told this because you’re far too buried in books and journals and not prepared for reality at all.

The information you have learned does have use, but you are denying the skills of deduction at the most basic level that are learned as early as the playground.

You have a number of people here telling you this, yet you still choose to ignore the collective wisdom of the people here.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Foreign Policy. Foreign policy. Foreign policy (Henry Kissinger appears). Hilary doesn’t have to lie. She’s far and away the most experienced and learned candidate in the discipline. [/quote]

Lets remember that experience doesn’t mean mastery or even adequacy. Just because she has done something doesn’t make her good at it. Bernie Madoff is an experienced investor.[/quote]

She’s widely regarded by subject matter experts to have been a highly competent SecState. She has an A+ understanding of international relations and American foreign policy. The same can’t be said of Carson or Trump, who aren’t even so much as dilettantes. This isn’t an endorsement of Clinton, it’s a recognition of reality; that is, she has a massive advantage in this area over the current GOP front-runners. Carson and Trump are at the bottom of the barrel in this regard. If the GOP wants an electable candidate or, heaven forbid, keep the aforementioned rank amateurs from becoming CIC, it must do away with the myopic revisionism that has allowed naive outsiders to become the front-runners.

P.S., those who aren’t adequate in this area themselves, that is, the majority of posters in PWI, are hardly in a position to assess the adequacy of another.[/quote]

You assessed her performance not me.
Hillary’s experience in foreign affairs is a good campaigning tool. She can say, as you all have, “I have experience with foreign diplomats.” The average uninformed voter will take that as: more experience = good. But that is not always the case.
This campaigning tool doesn’t always work. We don’t have to look further than 2008 when McCain said the same thing about Obama not having enough foreign policy experience. Whether it was true or not, the voters didn’t care.
[/quote]

True; good point. However, if you put someone with experience on stage with someone who is not just inexperienced but actually doesn’t know what the fuck he is talking about, it’ll be much, much different. It isn’t that Carson, e.g., hasn’t been in the room during diplomatic negotiations; it’s that he doesn’t now who’s in NATO. You can get away with the former, but, thankfully, not the latter, which is a recipe for public ruination.[/quote]

The faceplant in question:

Hewitt asked if NATO should be willing to go to war if Russian leader Vladimir Putin attempts to do in the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania) what he’s already done in Ukraine.
“I think they would be willing to go to war if they knew that they were backed up by us,” Carson said. “We need to convince them to get involved in NATO and strengthen NATO.”
“Well, the Baltics, they are in NATO,” Hewitt responded. [In fact, they’ve been member states since 2004.]

And let us not forget his imbecilic insistence that “the Chinese are there” in Syria.