What is Your Plan?

Mars wrote:

Trump ..... His knowledge of foreign policy is laughable, at best.

Since you know so much about foreign policy, please tell me (define) what Hillary's foreign policy will be. When George W. Bush was president, his foreign policy was defined as the "Bush Doctrine."



Hillary and Obama's foreign policy is 1 and the same. The U.S. foreign policy from 2009-1013 was the Obama/Hillary foreign policy. It was 1 and the same. Hillary has said she will continue Obama's policies.



So, please,

1. Define what Hillary's and Obama's foreign policy successes have been.

And

2. Define what Obama's (as it will be Hillary's) guiding foreign policy doctrine is.



Thank you.

What's funny, or not so funny about the Bush doctrine, is that I studied it while at BYU, just before 9/11 in my American Foreign Policy class. Right after 9/11, they were implementing it. The general idea is to use the military to oust unfriendly countries' governments and set up democracies. The theory cites Japan and Germany as good examples of where this has been extremely successful. The problem is that the doctrine did not take into account that for it to work, there had to be some semblance of law, civil society, and perhaps even democracy that the people had been accustomed to. Afghanistan was not such a place. It was never going to work there. Iraq was a little better, but there was no accounting for the religious wars that Saddam largely kept in check through brutal reign. Germany and Japan didn't have those issues. In hind sight, the doctrine is just repulsive.



Though I don't trust Trump not to be horrible, I do believe he would be less of a hawk than Hillary.

Hillary and obama left people without protection. I don't care how good their foreign policy is in theory, that isn't laughable it is terrible at best. I don't know how good or bad Trump will be but I don't see him doing that.

nuk13 wrote:
Hillary and obama left people without protection. I don't care how good their foreign policy is in theory, that isn't laughable it is terrible at best. I don't know how good or bad Trump will be but I don't see him doing that.

That is a valid point. If you leave Americans to die when it is your job to protect Americans, than you are unfit for office.

I will tell you that today is the first day in a long time I have given any real consideration to voting for Trump.



"What changed?", you might ask--"what argument swayed you to this thought?" I'll tell you -- a good friend mentioned that, give the two abhorrent choices, he was voting and hoping for Trump, not because of any policy or position, but because Trump would be infinitely more impeachable.



Given his off-again off-again relationship with the truth and his big mouth, Trump is a better impeachment target and less protected by his own party (and the media), and therefore vulnerable.



Probably not going to change my vote, but I'm open to the idea of a President Pence.

Ddawg wrote:

Trump ..... His knowledge of foreign policy is laughable, at best.

Since you know so much about foreign policy, please tell me (define) what Hillary's foreign policy will be. When George W. Bush was president, his foreign policy was defined as the "Bush Doctrine."



Hillary and Obama's foreign policy is 1 and the same. The U.S. foreign policy from 2009-1013 was the Obama/Hillary foreign policy. It was 1 and the same. Hillary has said she will continue Obama's policies.



So, please,

1. Define what Hillary's and Obama's foreign policy successes have been.

And

2. Define what Obama's (as it will be Hillary's) guiding foreign policy doctrine is.



Thank you.

Bush post 9/11 = Clinton = Obama (with a few caveats). Bush on the campaign trail in 1999 was hands down the best candidate since Ronald Reagan (and I'm talking Reagan in 1976 good). He didn't follow through on his promise to stop trying to be the policeman of world and instead of ending an alliance with the true perpetrators of 9/11 (I'm looking at you Saudi Arabia), he strengthened it and took his eye off the ball. He went after a whole country in Afghanistan instead of the 100 thugs who lived there but were actually Saudi Nationals and received their funding from the Kingdom. Iraq is on a whole other level of stupidity (along with Libya and Syria).



Obama greatest success: Not listening to the morons who would have sent ground troops to Syria (including Clinton) and getting rid of the embargoes with Iran. Clinton had no successes unless you consider coups in the Ukraine, Libya, and Honduras success. I suppose she succeeded in her design. Her design was crap, just like it was when Bush was pushing it. Obama should have stuck with his promises to remove troops from Iraq, and he should have abandoned Afghanistan when he found out it was the Saudis who did 9/11.



I'll say this. Both Bush in 2000 and Obama in 2008 talked a good game in foreign policy. Neither of them followed through. They were co-opted by the military industrial congressional complex. Trump seems a lot more likely to tell the generals to pound sand and get us out of the ME given what he has said. I think he'll cave just like Bush and Obama did. Clinton on the other hand is bought and paid for already.

snoscythe wrote:
I will tell you that today is the first day in a long time I have given any real consideration to voting for Trump.



"What changed?", you might ask--"what argument swayed you to this thought?" I'll tell you -- a good friend mentioned that, give the two abhorrent choices, he was voting and hoping for Trump, not because of any policy or position, but because Trump would be infinitely more impeachable.



Given his off-again off-again relationship with the truth and his big mouth, Trump is a better impeachment target and less protected by his own party (and the media), and therefore vulnerable.



Probably not going to change my vote, but I'm open to the idea of a President Pence.

I've brought the same idea up here. Clinton has violated about every ounce of trust the public has ever given her, and she did it while in an official capacity and STILL is on the verge of becoming president. Absolutely terrifying if that is the will of the American people.



Trump on the other hand will spend 4 years getting absolutely battered for any bad or good idea. Trump

(at the worst) causes a freeze on government's intrusion. Hillary is a runaway train.

BroncoBot wrote:

I will tell you that today is the first day in a long time I have given any real consideration to voting for Trump.



"What changed?", you might ask--"what argument swayed you to this thought?" I'll tell you -- a good friend mentioned that, give the two abhorrent choices, he was voting and hoping for Trump, not because of any policy or position, but because Trump would be infinitely more impeachable.



Given his off-again off-again relationship with the truth and his big mouth, Trump is a better impeachment target and less protected by his own party (and the media), and therefore vulnerable.



Probably not going to change my vote, but I'm open to the idea of a President Pence.

I've brought the same idea up here. Clinton has violated about every ounce of trust the public has ever given her, and she did it while in an official capacity and STILL is on the verge of becoming president. Absolutely terrifying if that is the will of the American people.



Trump on the other hand will spend 4 years getting absolutely battered for any bad or good idea. Trump

(at the worst) causes a freeze on government's intrusion. Hillary is a runaway train.

And there's enough GOP resistance to Trump that a GOP Congress would have cover in impeaching a "GOP" president.

Given that the required 2/3's vote needed in the Senate has never been reached--ever--as far as impeachment is concerned, and that more Congressional Republicans have indicated their continued intent to vote for Trump (even if they do not support him blah blah blah), this is a thin reed indeed....We will need to pray for this country like never before regardless of who is elected--Trump or Clinton, because we are in deep deep trouble.

I guess I'm not feeling quite as "apocalyptic" right now for lack of a better word. I think the damage is for the longterm given the the way we're spending money. The problem is neither party seems to care. Some Republicans still do care, but they're the Paul Ryan wing of the party that Trump has tried to destroy. The silver lining with Trump losing would be that he leaves the party and takes his silly ideas with him so the GOP can go back to standing for sound things like fiscal responsibility.

I'm sorry, but Paul Ryan needs to go, he's no better than Boehner. Republican (party) hasn't stood for "sound things like fiscal responsibility" for generations.



Paul Ryan selection by Romney was the death knell in his campaign.

BlueK wrote:
I guess I'm not feeling quite as "apocalyptic" right now for lack of a better word. I think the damage is for the longterm given the the way we're spending money. The problem is neither party seems to care. Some Republicans still do care, but they're the Paul Ryan wing of the party that Trump has tried to destroy. The silver lining with Trump losing would be that he leaves the party and takes his silly ideas with him so the GOP can go back to standing for sound things like fiscal responsibility.

Paul Ryan? Really?



There are perhaps 20-30 Republicans in the House and Senate who care even a little bit about fiscal responsibility and Paul Ryan isn't on that list.