Hillary vs. Carson?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]MaximusB 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 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]

You don’t know me or my background. If you take issue with what I wrote, address it line by line. If you are unable or unwilling to do so, don’t expect another response from me. Ad hominems don’t refute my argument.

Collective wisdom of who, exactly? You? Name names, if you can. There are a only handful of posters in PWI who have an adequate understanding of international affairs and American foreign policy. They aren’t dog piling my post.

162

[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 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]

I agree with this. I think Hillary’s foreign policy chops are mediocre at best (contrary to Bismarck’s belief, and to the extent she gets “high grades” from peers, I think there is some groupthink going on), but the mere fact that she is conversant and still yet mediocre puts her at advantage to someone like Carson.

163

[quote]Sloth wrote:
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]

Agreed, and it is worthy of pity. One thing I’d add is that all this reminds me of one of the worst things about the Right over the past several years - it’s loss of intelligence and skepticism. Anymore, a website is viewed or an email gets sent with all sorts of misinformation in it (especially with respect to Obama, as we’ve seen here) and legions of right-wingers take every ounce of it as Gospel, never once bothering to be skeptical or critical. And its dumb stuff, too, written at what appears to be a third grade level. But nothing is given a second thought - it landed in my email box from someone claiming to be a “Proud American” so it must be truth!

It probably deserves its own thread, but the Right has become increasingly enamored with tabloidism as truth in politics, and is all the dumber for it. It wasn’t always this way, but it is now.

164

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[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]

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. Meanwhile, we have Carson insisting that the Chinese are in Syria despite a complete absence of evidence and that the US could have snagged Usama bin Laden soon after 9/11 had President Bush merely declared that the United States would pursue energy independence. The GOP establishment is in a near panic not only because Trump and Carson have next to zero electability vis-a-vis Clinton. The GOP will get slapped across the board if they nominate either of those rank amateurs. They’re equally afraid that Clinton will hit a banana peel and one of those aforementioned pretenders - neither of whom have the experience, knowledge, or temperament to be POTUS - will become president. [/quote]

Experience matters.

BUT Did you vote for McCain over our Brass-Knuckled CIC? If you did, you are right. And consistent.

Or is it different now, since foreign affairs are much more… Complicated? Of course this has zero to do with Obama. Spurious relationship.

And I will say it, as much as I hate doing so, you are right about Hillary.

165

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
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]

Agreed, and it is worthy of pity. One thing I’d add is that all this reminds me of one of the worst things about the Right over the past several years - it’s loss of intelligence and skepticism. Anymore, a website is viewed or an email gets sent with all sorts of misinformation in it (especially with respect to Obama, as we’ve seen here) and legions of right-wingers take every ounce of it as Gospel, never once bothering to be skeptical or critical. And its dumb stuff, too, written at what appears to be a third grade level. But nothing is given a second thought - it landed in my email box from someone claiming to be a “Proud American” so it must be truth!

It probably deserves its own thread, but the Right has become increasingly enamored with tabloidism as truth in politics, and is all the dumber for it. It wasn’t always this way, but it is now.
[/quote]

This really isn’t a problem exclusive to the American Right Wing…

Honestly, if I had a dollar for every false post and/or statement about taxation I’d be able to fund Trump’s run. In fact if I see the “but da tax ratez in da 50’s and 60’s waz 90%” talking point one more time… I’ll do nothing but know that person lacks the ability to think, or even elementary knowledge of taxation, and is to be ignored re: opinion on anything substantive.

166

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
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]

Agreed, and it is worthy of pity. One thing I’d add is that all this reminds me of one of the worst things about the Right over the past several years - it’s loss of intelligence and skepticism. Anymore, a website is viewed or an email gets sent with all sorts of misinformation in it (especially with respect to Obama, as we’ve seen here) and legions of right-wingers take every ounce of it as Gospel, never once bothering to be skeptical or critical. And its dumb stuff, too, written at what appears to be a third grade level. But nothing is given a second thought - it landed in my email box from someone claiming to be a “Proud American” so it must be truth!

It probably deserves its own thread, but the Right has become increasingly enamored with tabloidism as truth in politics, and is all the dumber for it. It wasn’t always this way, but it is now.
[/quote]

This really isn’t a problem exclusive to the American Right Wing…

Honestly, if I had a dollar for every false post and/or statement about taxation I’d be able to fund Trump’s run. In fact if I see the “but da tax ratez in da 50’s and 60’s waz 90%” talking point one more time… I’ll do nothing but know that person lacks the ability to think, or even elementary knowledge of taxation, and is to be ignored re: opinion on anything substantive. [/quote]

I completely agree it isn’t exclusive to right-wing politics. It’s interesting - where I live, I subscribe to both parties’ mailers (via email) as well as certain interest groups. Misinformation is a tactic on both sides.

But I do think it has gotten drastically worse for the Right over the past several years. By magnitudes.

167

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Misinformation is a tactic on both sides.[/quote]

I’ve come to the conclusion that politics is 98% mental manipulation by the “parties” and 2% statespeople looking to make a difference in the world, or even their home town.

I watch the commercials, hear the music, listen to the cuts, the tones, the visuals, the color choices, thematic nuances… It’s not different than Samsung using that chick’s voice from 40 Year Old Virgin to seduce you while you listen. (She sounds spectacularly both sexy as hell and comforting at the same time.)

I’m really fed up with it these days. I’ve had a real hard time paying any attention outside this forum to anything political.

[quote]But I do think it has gotten drastically worse for the Right over the past several years. By magnitudes.
[/quote]

Probably… I don’t know, I only stopped falling for the left’s Stockholm syndrome inducing tactics and lies about 3-4 years ago myself.

168

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I’ve come to the conclusion that politics is 98% mental manipulation by the “parties” and 2% statespeople looking to make a difference in the world, or even their home town.

[/quote]

Politics is the ability to passionately say nothing.

169

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[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 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]

I agree with this. I think Hillary’s foreign policy chops are mediocre at best (contrary to Bismarck’s belief, and to the extent she gets “high grades” from peers, I think there is some groupthink going on), but the mere fact that she is conversant and still yet mediocre puts her at advantage to someone like Carson.
[/quote]

She’s far and away the most experienced and learned 2016 candidate when it comes to that area. If she is mediocre, what does that make the GOP candidates, especially vis-a-vis her? Abysmal? At the very best, Rubio, the clear front-runner in that regard, would barely be mediocre. What evidence do you have of groupthink? Subject matter experts on both sides of the political aisle generally regard Clinton as highly competent. They may not always agree with her, they may personally dislike her, but they respect her aptitude in the international sphere. I can attest to that firsthand.

170

[quote]Bismark wrote:

She’s far and away the most experienced and learned 2016 candidate when it comes to that area. If she is mediocre, what does that make the GOP candidates, especially vis-a-vis her? Abysmal? At the very best, Rubio, the clear front-runner in that regard, would barely be mediocre. What evidence do you have of groupthink? Subject matter experts on both sides of the political aisle generally regard Clinton as highly competent. They may not always agree with her, they may personally dislike her, but they respect her aptitude in the international sphere. I can attest to that firsthand. [/quote]

She does have the most experience, and that plays well against the Carsons of the race, who when put on a stage next to her, will be exposed as completely unprepared for the job. It’s less of an automatic advantage against the more serious competitors. The reason is because experience is a double-edged sword - having experience means having a body of work, and if your body of work isn’t great, citing your experience isn’t necessarily helpful. In fact, it can downright hurt you.

And this also dovetails into your other question about Hillary. No Secretary of State can claim a great score at the job having presided over the debacle of Libya. The naked illegality (and the precedent it sets), the complete lack of national interest at stake, the irresponsibility that led to the power and vacuum and the resulting descent into a terrorist haven - it’s simply impossible to claim Hillary is a great SOS with this goat rodeo on her watch. Now, part of this is on Obama, and Hillary shouldn’t be afraid to say so, but she’s no superstar. Libya was a foreign policy disaster of the first rank.

So, simply citing experience isn’t good currency - this is especially true given that so few presidential candidates any more have direct foreign policy experience prior to running for the office. Voters are used to understanding that limitation and are willing to be less forgiving of that limitation.

Hillary’s resume is good, on paper - incredibly good, in fact. But again, on paper. And GOP candidates are going to have to really bone up of foreign policy to overcome her advantage in front of general audiences. But she’s vulnerable in the exact space she’s supposed to have a great advantage, and saying " I was Secertary of State" won’t mean much if voters respond “true, but you were a crappy Secretary of State”.

I generally agree with you that experience here is an advantage. It’s not a panacea for Hillary, though.

171

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

She does have the most experience, and that plays well against the Carsons of the race, who when put on a stage next to her, will be exposed as completely unprepared for the job. It’s less of an automatic advantage against the more serious competitors. The reason is because experience is a double-edged sword - having experience means having a body of work, and if your body of work isn’t great, citing your experience isn’t necessarily helpful. In fact, it can downright hurt you.
[/quote]

Well said.

172

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Misinformation is a tactic on both sides.[/quote]

I’ve come to the conclusion that politics is 98% mental manipulation by the “parties” and 2% statespeople looking to make a difference in the world, or even their home town.

I watch the commercials, hear the music, listen to the cuts, the tones, the visuals, the color choices, thematic nuances… It’s not different than Samsung using that chick’s voice from 40 Year Old Virgin to seduce you while you listen. (She sounds spectacularly both sexy as hell and comforting at the same time.)

I’m really fed up with it these days. I’ve had a real hard time paying any attention outside this forum to anything political.

[quote]But I do think it has gotten drastically worse for the Right over the past several years. By magnitudes.
[/quote]

Probably… I don’t know, I only stopped falling for the left’s Stockholm syndrome inducing tactics and lies about 3-4 years ago myself.
[/quote]

I generally agree. But unfortunately, demagogy is a two-way street - you can’t have a successful demagogue without a bunch of willing, gullible, and uncritical followers who are willing to believe anything the demagogue says.

Fast forward to the modern Right - an email comes in with an eagle or American flag at the top and saying “You Won’t Believe What Obama Did Now!” is believed and touted as fact without the slightest skepticism. And opinions are based on all the idiocy included these emails and websites.

The Left does it, too - but the Right is far worse these days.

But I agree about the politicians. We’re short on statesmen, and I don’t see one for 2016.

173

[quote]MaximusB 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 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]

If we were only so enlightened as the young college student.

I’ll ask again Bismark, you talk of foreign policy experience, but what was your assessment of Obama in 2008? Since, in your opinion, he has been a smashing success… Experience obviously does not matter.

And Bistro, do you expect us to pay off your student loans?

175

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I’ve also said it before and will again that even if Hillary had been a top notch SoS, which she surely wasn’t by almost anyone’s measure, her criminal/unethical mind and criminal/unethical deeds in all areas of public and private life should disqualify her from the office of president – if not legally then most certainly in the minds of prudent thinking voters.
[/quote]

I believe the FBI has escalated the investigation surrounding her personal email scandal. If that is the case with any luck at all (and if Obama does not squash it) they might just agree with you. This means she could be indicted before the election. The FBI is not known to work fast but they are very thorough.

176

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

She’s far and away the most experienced and learned 2016 candidate when it comes to that area. If she is mediocre, what does that make the GOP candidates, especially vis-a-vis her? Abysmal? At the very best, Rubio, the clear front-runner in that regard, would barely be mediocre. What evidence do you have of groupthink? Subject matter experts on both sides of the political aisle generally regard Clinton as highly competent. They may not always agree with her, they may personally dislike her, but they respect her aptitude in the international sphere. I can attest to that firsthand. [/quote]

She does have the most experience, and that plays well against the Carsons of the race, who when put on a stage next to her, will be exposed as completely unprepared for the job. It’s less of an automatic advantage against the more serious competitors. The reason is because experience is a double-edged sword - having experience means having a body of work, and if your body of work isn’t great, citing your experience isn’t necessarily helpful. In fact, it can downright hurt you.

And this also dovetails into your other question about Hillary. No Secretary of State can claim a great score at the job having presided over the debacle of Libya. The naked illegality (and the precedent it sets), the complete lack of national interest at stake, the irresponsibility that led to the power and vacuum and the resulting descent into a terrorist haven - it’s simply impossible to claim Hillary is a great SOS with this goat rodeo on her watch. Now, part of this is on Obama, and Hillary shouldn’t be afraid to say so, but she’s no superstar. Libya was a foreign policy disaster of the first rank.

So, simply citing experience isn’t good currency - this is especially true given that so few presidential candidates any more have direct foreign policy experience prior to running for the office. Voters are used to understanding that limitation and are willing to be less forgiving of that limitation.

Hillary’s resume is good, on paper - incredibly good, in fact. But again, on paper. And GOP candidates are going to have to really bone up of foreign policy to overcome her advantage in front of general audiences. But she’s vulnerable in the exact space she’s supposed to have a great advantage, and saying " I was Secertary of State" won’t mean much if voters respond “true, but you were a crappy Secretary of State”.

I generally agree with you that experience here is an advantage. It’s not a panacea for Hillary, though.[/quote]

I think this was an excellent post.

I’ve also said it before and will again that even if Hillary had been a top notch SoS, which she surely wasn’t by almost anyone’s measure, her criminal/unethical mind and criminal/unethical deeds in all areas of public and private life should disqualify her from the office of president – if not legally then most certainly in the minds of prudent thinking voters.
[/quote]

I still think the worst is yet to come for Hillary. I think we were seeing some bad emails, etc. while there was some question as to whether she’d win the nomination, but now that that is basically wrapped up, I think the holders of the very harmful information are keeping their powder dry till the general election.

The Democrats have overinvested in Hillary, and I think it’s going to come back to bite them.

177

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

I still think the worst is yet to come for Hillary. I think we were seeing some bad emails, etc. while there was some question as to whether she’d win the nomination, but now that that is basically wrapped up, I think the holders of the very harmful information are keeping their powder dry till the general election.

The Democrats have overinvested in Hillary, and I think it’s going to come back to bite them.
[/quote]

Great point. There is no value in bringing up dirt on Hillary right now. Wait until general election voters are paying attention.

178

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

I still think the worst is yet to come for Hillary. I think we were seeing some bad emails, etc. while there was some question as to whether she’d win the nomination, but now that that is basically wrapped up, I think the holders of the very harmful information are keeping their powder dry till the general election.

The Democrats have overinvested in Hillary, and I think it’s going to come back to bite them.
[/quote]

Great point. There is no value in bringing up dirt on Hillary right now. Wait until general election voters are paying attention. [/quote]

I wish, but I doubt it. I think it’s more to push Sanders out. There probably is some collusion with the top Washington insiders before more emails are released. HRC is status-quo big government, big money old school democrat. She is too much on the inside to fail. Too much money/power invested in her.

And the Dems, with the media’s help, will pivot on anything further damaging to Clinton. They are far more cunning, and just too determined and ruthless quite frankly. National security is our only hope.

179

Thunderbolt,

How did intervention in Libya constitute “naked illegality”?

180

“CARSON UNABLE TO GRASP DYNAMICS OF MIDDLE EAST, ADVISER SAYS
Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson is struggling to understand the Middle East, one of his top national-security advisers told reporters on Tuesday. ?Nobody has been able to sit down with him and have him get one iota of intelligent information about the Middle East,? said Duane Clarridge, a former CIA officer who was involved in the creation of the agency?s Counterterrorism Center during the Reagan Administration. In last week?s Republican presidential debate, Carson suggested that the Chinese were involved militarily in Syria, remarks that were disputed by the Washington and Beijing.”