General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 300

Why Gun Owners Should Reject Trump’s Call to “Second Amendment People” - The New Yorker

For anyone who cares about the future of American politics, the comment represents a dwindling commitment to politics itself, to the notion that, through rhetoric and competition, we might find a common way as a people. Instead, the Republican candidate made a casual nod to the final force of arms. At this stage, so little that Trump says shocks us, but, now and then, it is worth stepping back and regarding the full damage of it all: the wounds to our fading global image of openness and generosity; the stomping on our admiration for intelligence, eloquence, or honesty; and now the blithe contempt for safe and civil government.

 

In 2007, Trump was forced to face his own falsehoods. And he did, 30 times.

 

the discussion was regarding her stances relative to the republican party's.

 

calling black kids super predators and voting for the iraq war and criminalizing flag burning and supporting DOMA all fit pretty snugly into the republican oeuvre

 

And you're being rude for no reason? If you don't want to explain why you think I'm wrong, don't bother quoting my post.

 

Sorry I didn't bother editing my post from pages ago, but I'm going to reiterate that I meant diplomacy, not democracy. I'm going by the definition, so if you want to contest that, be my guest. I'm not here for it.

 

This....really doesn't negate anything that I said.

Tactics can be the same but it doesn't mean the electorate is. 1995 was an attempted power move...2013 was a ""the old whit epeople are dying of we need to do something quick" desperation move.

 

Catching up on this thread before bed and hoooooooooly shit.

 

Dom, you make my cynical heart happy.

 

I take issue with the idea of teachers having "cushy" benefits. Its like calling good health plans "Cadillac plans" -- something that is decent in that it provides the intended service isn't extravagant.

Beyond that most school districts are cutting retirement and health care contributions.

And generally speaking I feel compelled to nag on this topic because benefits are IMPORTANT. People discount their total compensation without factoring in benefits. When wages are stagnant, benefits represent the greatest way to give workers a leg up.

 

My mother teaches in a district where the superintendent drives a Corvette paid on the district's dime. She wonders why I gave up my dream of being a history teacher.

 

I feel as though people are being purposefully naive if they believe republican endorsements don't come at a cost.

 

Clinton’s Republican outreach a step too far for already-suspicious liberals

 

accurately describing what you are doing isnt being rude, its being accurate

it has been a part of the political lexicon for literally centuries and long ago expanded beyond simply being someone in favor of war, this is literally as easy as googling the words "war hawk" or "hawkish" or paying attention to any kind of policy discussion

War hawk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clinton is a war hawk. It is an accurate description of her policies to this point and will in all likelihood continue to be given her election to the presidency. It is not a dated term or a way to dodge answers, it is simply a description of her approach to international politics.

 

"
Well, that's special, isn't it? And what did Negroponte do while serving "in numerous diplomatic and national security positions starting in 1960"? I'm glad you asked.

In the 1980s, he served as the U.S. ambassador to Honduras. In addition to (at best) covering for that country's murderous autocrats, he also served the Reagan Administration by helping to turn Honduras into a staging area for American-trained death squads in places like El Salvador and Guatemala. (Remember, Eugene Hasenfus was flying out of a base in Honduras when he got shot down over Nicaragua, which is when the Iran-Contra criminal enterprise began to unravel.)"

Why Is Hillary Clinton Bragging About This Endorsement?


But let's continue to talk about Trump is "crazy".

 

Jill Stein has spent more money on TV ads than Donald Trump

 

My issue with the term is that it's overly simplistic in reference to an issue I don't think is simple. "War hawk" doesn't really accurately describe any policy so much as it implies trigger happy war policy, and like I've said multiple times in this thread I agree that Clinton is quick to answer international problems with war and violence, but it's unfair to say that Clinton is simply "a war hawk who will continue to be in her presidency" when we already have troops out and the current administration routinely authorizes air strikes. This isn't simply an issue of Clinton being a war hawk (and if you're solely going by the apparently new definition of hawkish that I haven't seen anyone define but you, sure. She is), this is the precedent that other presidents have set. It's much more complicated than "Clinton likes war." She sure does, but America loves war and has dealt with all of its problems by way of warfare the past 250 years. You can throw around the term war hawk as much as you like and I'm not saying the term itself is necessarily wrong, but it is a very lazy political critique.

 

To put it in perspective, Obama and Hillary have repeatedly clashed precisely because she thinks he has been too much of a dove. So, to your point, yes, America is militaristic, but that does not absolve the president from actively choosing a more imperial course of action. They remain culpable, so they can be referred to as a war criminal/war hawk.

 

When's the last time we had a president who wasn't a war hawk?

 

Agreed, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. My point was that I think our criticism of Hillary can do a lot better than "she's a war hawk." I mean it's not like she hasn't given us a lot of material to work with.

 

I guess I do not understand your point. Could you elaborate, please?

 

I think Jimmy Carter was at least less of a hawk comparatively speaking