US Politics

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

. Stating unequivocally that there won't be boots on the ground in Syria or Iraq is a little self limiting though, and while that should definitely be the aim, those words will come back to bite her if the situation significantly changed in the next few years.

Trum

Considering her Syria, Iraq, and Libya fiascos this is indeed refreshing.

**Polonius**

Peregrine wrote:
The reason you don't hear many people talking about how much they love Clinton for policy reasons is that it's a really boring conversation. You know exactly what you're getting from her: the mainstream democratic party platform, executed competently enough while staying well within the center-left and not doing anything that could upset the mainstream power groups too much. There just isn't that much to discuss, you either agree with that platform or disagree with it, and you probably aren't going to change your mind on the subject. So the interesting conversations this election are "what utter disaster is Trump's campaign going to come up with next" and "should conservatives who disagree with the democrats on policy vote for Clinton anyway because Trump is really that awful".

In an era of increased partisan polarization, Hilary is oddly painted as this extreme left winger by the right, which doesn't really stick. Her voting in the Senate was reliably liberal, but overall, she represents "mainstream" Democrat policies. She's not wildly socially progressive, and her approach to military and foreign affairs is more hawkish than Obama. One interesting aspect of her record is that she is not particularly self aggrandizing. Some of that is undoubtedly due to being elected after being first lady, making name recognition not a factor, but her work tends to be more policy driven and less populist. Nobody doubts that she works hard, and isn't obsessed with signature accomplishments.

whembly wrote:

For as long as Clinton been in government, you'd think she'd made some significant mark during her tenures that would make you want to vote for her, rather than voting for Clinton simply because she's Not-Trump (which is understandable) or the anti-GOP.

I, for one, want to vote for Hilary, because of how she has held prior positions. I like the idea that she's strong in policy, that she has good diplomatic experience, and that she's consistently worked in public service. I preferred her over Sanders in the primaries because I saw Sanders as an idealist that would have trouble making the compromises necessary for the president. I think Hillary is very capable of making hard choices and compromises.

**Maddermax**

Frazzled wrote:
. Stating unequivocally that there won't be boots on the ground in Syria or Iraq is a little self limiting though, and while that should definitely be the aim, those words will come back to bite her if the situation significantly changed in the next few years.

Trum

Considering her Syria, Iraq, and Libya fiascos this is indeed refreshing.

While I really want to add a sarcastic reply here, I'm just going to say that if you call those situations "fiascos" you must be so livid about the handling of the Bush wars that you can't think of words to use. Christ, I dread to think what would have happened if McCain or Romney had been elected - boots on the ground in Syria, Libya and Iran would have done wonders for international sentiment.

**jasper76**

Agiel wrote:
Surprised Trump's man-crush on Putin isn't making the waves that it should. I swear, the way Trump goes on about him it's like his candidacy is the product of some Soviet-era Manchurian Candidate project using out of mothball mind control chips. And being Soviet technology, they now constitute about 75% of the interior volume of Trump's cranium and have faulty wiring.

There might be lots wrong with the US at the moment, from the collapse of the middle class to increasingly divisive identity politics, but there is absolutely nothing about Putin's governance any right-thinking person who aspires to CINC has to admire or seek to emulate. That is, unless his or her thing is political assassination of journalists and the illegal seizure of other people's property (which I suppose explains Trump's comments on eminent domain).

I have been at this Putin crush for a long time, and also his campaign staffs troubling connections to the Russian elite, and his anti-NATO platform. I really think there may be fire behind that smoke...maybe Trump has been made promises by the Russians, maybe he has made promises to the Russians, maybe it is just a simple sexual crush on Putin, or maybe just an admiration for authoritarians in general (other then Putin, Patton seems to be the figure Trump most admires)...anyway I stopped harping on it somewhat, because people act like its a non-issue and accuse me of "eternal hatred of the Russian".

**Frazzled**

While I really want to add a sarcastic reply here, I'm just going to say that if you call those situations "fiascos" you must be so livid about the handling of the Bush wars that you can't think of words to use. Christ, I dread to think what would have happened if McCain or Romney had been elected - boots on the ground in Syria, Libya and Iran would have done wonders for international sentiment.

Libya is now chaos with the second strongest ISIL branch there, plus Al Qaeda.
Syria-well we all know about that.
Iraq-thats your aforementioned Bush War. Yes I am livid.

What foreign policy thing did she do right?

Bosnia, Somalia, Russia reset? Which one again?

**Kilkrazy**

What is your definition of "doing it right"?

**Co'tor Shas**

Frazz is basically an isonationalist/non-interventionist, from what I can tell. Not a stance I agree with, but certainly one I can respect.

**Maddermax**

Kilkrazy wrote:
What is your definition of "doing it right"?

Being a Republican.

I remember that during the Libya thing, Republicans were criticising Obama for both doing too much, and doing too little *at the same time*. There was literally no right move from the Republican perspective unless he could wave a magic wand and create a stable, lasting and pro-American democracy there out of thin air. Even then, they'd try to impeach him for being a witch.

Thing is, the US isn't the world police, and for all the power of the US it cannot control absolutely every foreign nation's domestic stability. Obama took the right path in not putting boots on the ground there, and not trying to impose American will on the country, just because he could.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:
What is your definition of "doing it right"?

not having it turn into a clusterfeth.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazz is basically an isonationalist/non-interventionist, from what I can tell. Not a stance I agree with, but certainly one I can respect.

Non-military interventionalist (like most of the world). We should use our political and economic power to better our citizens and help other nations through peaceful means.

But I agree she's effectively what would used to be called a Southern Democrat. If she wasn't so anti 2nd Amendment I'd probably vote for her.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Maddermax wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
What is your definition of "doing it right"?

Being a Republican.

I remember that during the Libya thing, Republicans were criticising Obama for both doing too much, and doing too little *at the same time*. There was literally no right move from the Republican perspective unless he could wave a magic wand and create a stable, lasting and pro-American democracy there out of thin air. Even then, they'd try to impeach him for being a witch.

Thing is, the US isn't the world police, and for all the power of the US it cannot control absolutely every foreign nation's domestic stability. Obama took the right path in not putting boots on the ground there, and not trying to impose American will on the country, just because he could.

before war-dictator who was against ALQaeda and ha given up WMD aims.
after Obama war- Beirut 1980s. Yep he did the right thing. He forgot the Powell Doctrine (like Bush did in Iraq). You need a compelling national interest.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
From the San Fran paper, an evidently epic statement by Trump last night:

"The best thing we can do is set up a court system within the military," he said according to Time. "Right now the court system practically doesn't exist."

Must be news to the JAG. . .

**Kilkrazy**

Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
What is your definition of "doing it right"?

not having it turn into a clusterfeth.

...

You need to provide a bit more detail, else we are left with the impression that you think the situation was soluble if someone else but Clinton had not been secretary of state at the time, but not how or why.

It's true that the current situation in the Middle East and North Africa is not at all what we would like it to be. To some degree the area has always been prone to the kind of outbreaks it is now suffering from; e.g. civil war in the Yemen, Afghanistan under the Soviets, violent cults in Africa, unrest in The Lebanon and Palestine.

It's not actually so easy to wave a magic wand and set things all to rights. Perhaps Clinton actually has done better than could have been expected, and if Trump had been in charge things would actually be a great deal worse.

**Frazzled**

Definitely solveable: don't go there.

Iraq: don't go there.
Libya: don't go there.
Syria: Don't get involved there.
Somalia: don't go hunting clan leaders.
I should add Serbia to the list.

**whembly**

Polonius wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
The reason you don't hear many people talking about how much they love Clinton for policy reasons is that it's a really boring conversation. You know exactly what you're getting from her: the mainstream democratic party platform, executed competently enough while staying well within the center-left and not doing anything that could upset the mainstream power groups too much. There just isn't that much to discuss, you either agree with that platform or disagree with it, and you probably aren't going to change your mind on the subject. So the interesting conversations this election are "what utter disaster is Trump's campaign going to come up with next" and "should conservatives who disagree with the democrats on policy vote for Clinton anyway because Trump is really that awful".

In an era of increased partisan polarization, Hilary is oddly painted as this extreme left winger by the right, which doesn't really stick. Her voting in the Senate was reliably liberal, but overall, she represents "mainstream" Democrat policies. She's not wildly socially progressive, and her approach to military and foreign affairs is more hawkish than Obama. One interesting aspect of her record is that she is not particularly self aggrandizing. Some of that is undoubtedly due to being elected after being first lady, making name recognition not a factor, but her work tends to be more policy driven and less populist. Nobody doubts that she works hard, and isn't obsessed with signature accomplishments.

That's pretty spot on.

Also, add in that she's not really much of an ideologue like Obama. If anything, she represent the quintessential establishment Democratic politician. I hope she shows that same political acumen that her husband has... which, if we're all honest... she hasn't exhibited that in quite some time.

whembly wrote:

For as long as Clinton been in government, you'd think she'd made some significant mark during her tenures that would make you want to vote for her, rather than voting for Clinton simply because she's Not-Trump (which is understandable) or the anti-GOP.

I, for one, want to vote for Hilary, because of how she has held prior positions. I like the idea that she's strong in policy, that she has good diplomatic experience, and that she's consistently worked in public service. I preferred her over Sanders in the primaries because I saw Sanders as an idealist that would have trouble making the compromises necessary for the president. I think Hillary is very capable of making hard choices and compromises.

Fair enough. I readily acknowledge that her experience can be argued as a plus when compared to Trump. However, her experience can also be an albatross as she's on record and can easily be pilloried.

Sanders was an intriguing candidate insofar as he's pushing more socialist ideas "more mainstream". In my view, he was a stronger candidate simply because you knew exactly what you're going to get.

As for the support for Hillary, I'm just appalled that there's concerted efforts to whitewash Clinton's habitual lying statements. It goes beyond what we expect our "stretching the truth" politician.

It's one thing to vote for Hillary because she's the "not Trump" alternative... I get that. But, to support her as a viable candidate? Geez... she represents all the "bad characteristics" that we attribute to bad/shady politicians.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

I should add Serbia to the list.

What was so wrong about Serbia?

There were honest to god muslim genocide ocurring there.

**jasper76**

Frazzled wrote:

From the San Fran paper, an evidently epic statement by Trump last night:

"The best thing we can do is set up a court system within the military," he said according to Time. "Right now the court system practically doesn't exist."

Must be news to the JAG. . .

Having watched the whole thing, it was 100% apparent that he has very little idea about the structure of the military, or really the nature of 21St century warfare. He is stuck with a WWII concept of how war is conducted, and I believe his storied naivety about nuclear warfare stems from this defect.

His idea of wiping out the "rubble" of the general corps and stacking it with his yes men is highly concerning and has obvious national security implications.

But most alarming was his opinion that we should have seized the oilfields of Iraq and setup a perpetual occupation, sacrificing more lives, because "to the Victor go the spoils".

And all for oil? We are having an oil boom in the US and it's something were trying to get off of due to carbon pollution, ffs.

**Frazzled**

What was so wrong about Serbia?

How is Kosova doing now? How many Serbs were driven out which started the blood bath there? The Serbs were responding in kind when the West attacked them.

Having watched the whole thing, it was 100% apparent that he has very little idea about the structure of the military, or really the nature of 21St century warfare. He is stuck with a WWII concept of how war is conducted, and I believe his storied naivety about nuclear warfare stems from this defect.

Yes. While I disagree on our military ventures (as noted above) at least she would know how the military works beyond seeing George C Scott play Patton.

**BigWaaagh**

Before all the Libertarians waste, I mean cast, their vote for Gary Johnson here's a little bit of reality as to their candidate's qualifications.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gary-johnson-asks-what-is-aleppo/ar-AAiE0Zg?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

Presidential politics is for the big boys with the chops and experience for it. It isn't pretty. It's politics at the highest, global level and it requires a politician that understands and can operate responsibly in that environment. HRC is the only adult in this room, period. The alternative is just too staggeringly stupid, childish and thin skinned to even contemplate. I think we're seeing a beginning of the two party system splinter, which I'm all for, but it's still years off and now is not the time for another Nader-like vote drain debacle.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:

What was so wrong about Serbia?

How is Kosova doing now?

Unless I'm mistaken... fine?

How many Serbs were driven out which started the blood bath there? The Serbs were responding in kind when the West attacked them.

Erm... preventing a genocide can only be a good thing.

**Frazzled**

It didn't prevent the genocide which occurred on the ethnic Serb Christians living there.

BUT, I realize I have dragged the topic off topic and apologize.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
It didn't prevent the genocide which occurred on the ethnic Serb Christians living there.

BUT, I realize I have dragged the topic off topic and apologize.

huh?

I thought it was the Bosniac (Bosian Muslim) that we affected by the ethnic cleanings by Milosevic's forces...

...Do i have that backwards?

**Frazzled**

No I think you're right on that. This is separate.

See also: Insurgency in Kosovo (1995–98), Kosovo War, and 2004 unrest in Kosovo

During 1995, historically troublesome relations between Serbs (Eastern Orthodox Christians) and Albanians (Sunni Muslims) in Kosovo started to escalate towards open conflict that ultimately resulted in Kosovo War (1999). During those years, Albanian Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) committed numerous attacks on Serbs and their cultural and religious institutions in Kosovo. One of such attacks was undertaken on 21 July 1998 when forces of KLA attacked the Serbian Orthodox Monastery of Zočište near Orahovac.[228] Monastery was captured and seven monks, a nun and several dozens Serbs who were sheltering there were taken as hostages, later to be released.[228]

Like many other Serbian Churches and Monasteries in Kosovo, the same monastery of Zočiste was finally destroyed by the KLA on September 13/14, 1999, by looting and then torching it.[229][230] As a result of persecution by Muslim Albanians, more than 200,000 Christian Orthodox Serbs had to flee Kosovo in 1999. In spite of the arrival the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo and forces of KFOR violence against remaining Serbian minority in Kosovo continued.

Violence against remaining Serbian Christians in Kosovo broke out again on 17 March 2004. Muslim Albanians, numbering around 50,000 conducted wide-ranging attacks on the Kosovo Serb minority, targeting also local Serbian churches and monasteries.[231] Authorities of Serbia strongly protested against ethnic and religious violence.[232] During the riots, Serbian civilians were killed, thousands of Serbs were forced to leave their homes, 935 Serb houses, 10 public facilities (schools, health care centers, and post offices) and 35 Serbian Orthodox church buildings were desecrated or destroyed, and six towns and nine villages were totally ethnically cleansed.[233] The "March Pogrom" was the largest violent anti-Serbian and anti-Christian incident in the region since the Kosovo War. The events were also called the "Kristallnacht of Kosovo"[234] and in Serbia, the "March Pogrom".[231][235]

**konst80hummel**

You' re off by a couple of years... Bosnia was 91 Cosovo was in 98 if memory serves.
Epic Ninja by Frazz...

**whembly**

Whoops... my bad guys.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Also, add in that she's not really much of an ideologue like Obama.

She pretty much is, though the ideology is different. It is primarily oriented around women, kids, and healthcare; an issue she shares with Obama.

whembly wrote:

I hope she shows that same political acumen that her husband has... which, if we're all honest... she hasn't exhibited that in quite some time.

She has never exhibited that. She's a well established policy wonk.

whembly wrote:

It's one thing to vote for Hillary because she's the "not Trump" alternative... I get that. But, to support her as a viable candidate? Geez... she represents all the "bad characteristics" that we attribute to bad/shady politicians.

That's just your "Hillary is Evil!" knee jerking, again.

**skyth**

Apparently Texas is ignoring the court order that prevented it from using the voter ID law that it passed.

**Frazzled**

skyth wrote:
Apparently Texas is ignoring the court order that prevented it from using the voter ID law that it passed.

Apparently not:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-08-04/voter-id-laws-in-jeopardy-as-texas-agrees-to-ease-its-rules

More Options

Under the state’s agreement with the Obama administration and voting-rights advocates, people lacking one of the required IDs will have more options in November. They will now be able to provide voter registration cards, certified birth certificates, utility bills, government checks, pay stubs or bank statements with their names and addresses on them.

"The agreement fully protects the citizens of Texas," Lang said.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the accord is an interim agreement that doesn’t prevent the state from appealing to the Supreme Court or continuing to defend the law. He alluded to a 2008 Supreme Court ruling that upheld an Indiana voter-ID law.

"The U.S. Supreme Court said that voter ID is a legitimate means of preventing voter fraud, and Texans widely support it to defend the integrity of our elections," Paxton said in an e-mailed statement. "This case is not over. "

U.S. Justice Department spokesman David Jacobs said the department didn’t have any comment on the accord, which still needs court approval.

http://www.votetexas.gov/faq/

When a voter arrives at a polling location, the voter will be asked to present one of the seven (7) acceptable forms of photo ID (listed below). If a voter has not been able to obtain one of the seven (7) acceptable forms of photo ID, and has a reasonable impediment or difficulty to obtaining an acceptable form of photo ID, the voter may present a supporting form of ID and execute a Reasonable Impediment Declaration, noting the voter’s reasonable impediment to obtaining an acceptable form of photo ID, and stating that the voter is the same person on the presented form of supporting form of ID.

Election officials are required to determine whether the voter’s name on the identification provided matches the name on the official list of registered voters (“OLRV”). After a voter presents their ID, whether it’s an acceptable form of photo ID or a supporting form of ID, the election worker will compare it to the OLRV. If the name on the ID matches the name on the list of registered voters, the voter will follow the regular procedures for voting.

If the name does not match exactly but is “substantially similar” to the name on the OLRV, the voter will be permitted to vote as long as the voter signs an affidavit stating that the voter is the same person on the list of registered voters.

If a voter (a) does not have one of the acceptable forms of photo identification listed below, which is not expired for more than four years, and a voter does not have a reasonable impediment to obtaining one of these forms of identification or (b) has, but did not bring to the polling place, one of the seven forms of acceptable photo identification listed above, which is not expired for more than four years, the voter may cast a provisional ballot at the polls. However, in order to have the provisional ballot counted, the voter will be required to visit the voter registrar’s office within six calendar days of the date of the election to either present one of the below forms of photo ID OR submit one of the temporary affidavits addressed in the question below (e.g., religious objection or natural disaster) in the presence of the county voter registrar while attesting to the fact that he or she does not have any of the required photo IDs.

Here is a list of the acceptable forms of photo ID at the polling place:

Texas driver license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS
Texas personal identification card issued by DPS
Texas license to carry a handgun issued by DPS
United States military identification card containing the person’s photograph
United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph
United States passport

With the exception of the U.S. citizenship certificate, the identification must be current or have expired no more than 4 years before being presented for voter qualification at the polling place.

Election Identification Certificates are available from all DPS driver license offices during regular business hours, and will be available from certain DPS driver license offices from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Saturday, October 22, 2016, and Saturday, October 29, 2016. Also, find mobile station locations here.
Here is a list of the supporting forms of ID that can be presented if the voter cannot obtain, and has a reasonable impediment or difficulty to obtaining one of the forms of acceptable photo ID:

Valid voter registration certificate
Certified birth certificate (must be an original)
Copy of or original current utility bill
Copy of or original bank statement
Copy of or original government check
Copy of or original paycheck
Copy of or original government document with your name and an address (original required if it contains a photograph)

After presenting a supporting form of ID, the voter must execute a Reasonable Impediment Declaration.

A permanent exemption is available for voters with documented disabilities who have not obtained one of the acceptable forms of photo ID. Voters with a disability may apply with the county voter registrar for a permanent exemption. The application must contain written documentation from either the U.S. Social Security Administration evidencing the applicant’s disability, or from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs evidencing a disability rating of at least 50 percent. In addition, the applicant must state that he or she has no valid form of acceptable photo ID. Those who obtain a disability exemption will be allowed to vote by presenting a voter registration certificate reflecting the exemption.

**d-usa**

Posting an article from a month ago where they said they were going to do X doesn't really do anything to counter the finding this month that they are actually doing Y.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
Posting an article from a month ago where they said they were going to do X doesn't really do anything to counter the finding this month that they are actually doing Y.

As there has been no election no Y has occurred. I posted the state's own FAQ which is in compliance.

Skyth posted nothing but an accusation. I could make the accusation that Skyth is really Donald Trump trolling us all, but I would have to have support to make an argument.

**d-usa**

Well, if you have training instructions for him that contradict the agreement reached between Yakface and him about not being Donald Trump you could be on to something. But there is actual proof that Texas is violating the agreement by providing training and instructions to poll workers that are in violation of the agreement. I do trust that you gave a minute to look at recent news before replying about the facts of the case?

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2016/09/07/167181/feds-texas-officials-not-following-judges-order-on-voter-id-law/

**Frazzled**

I read that. Appears the state and DOJ are in a tiff on what the negotiation really meant.

Until elections, there is no violation.

**whembly**

BigWaaagh wrote:
Before all the Libertarians waste, I mean cast, their vote for Gary Johnson here's a little bit of reality as to their candidate's qualifications.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gary-johnson-asks-what-is-aleppo/ar-AAiE0Zg?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

Presidential politics is for the big boys with the chops and experience for it. It isn't pretty. It's politics at the highest, global level and it requires a politician that understands and can operate responsibly in that environment. HRC is the only adult in this room, period. The alternative is just too staggeringly stupid, childish and thin skinned to even contemplate. I think we're seeing a beginning of the two party system splinter, which I'm all for, but it's still years off and now is not the time for another Nader-like vote drain debacle.

Well... in fairness, the libertarian foreign policy is no foreign policy.

Seriously, when I first saw that, my reaction was 'dude... lay off the bong for a bit and do some studying'.

I least he had the integrity to respond later by saying 'I blanked'.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Well... in fairness, the libertarian foreign policy is no foreign policy.

A philosophy of non-engagement necessitates a foreign policy. Libertarians can pretend otherwise, but they will remain incorrect.