Post: #76

(01-18-2014 06:01 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  I don't buy into all the doom and gloom paranoia. Anyone that's seriously going to leave the country soley because Hillary wins needs their head examined. You guys sound worse than the liberals claiming they were all running off to Canada if Bush won(of course they never actually did). Like Obama, in all likelihood she will govern as a moderate Republican. When exactly was the the last time we had a truly left-wing president in office that actually governed as one?

Your local politics are far more important when it comes to the direct impact on your life. The only thing Obama has done that has had a direct and measurable impact on my life was lower my healthcare insurance by about $30 through the the healthcare.gov site.

Agreed on the doom and gloom in both Hillary Clinton's case and Janet Yellen's. And maybe we should go back to classifying politicians as federalists or democrat-republicans.

Post: #77

(01-18-2014 06:06 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  Your original post had nothing to do with "respect" in regard to foreign policy?

Quote:Presidents are more important for the macro domestic challenges and for international leadership. On the global stage, Democratic US Presidents are far more respected and embraced than Republican ones.

Having confirmed that you are a sociopath, I'll just move on.

That's fine by me. I don't know why you want to have a discussion anyway. You've already made your point. I can only make my points and cite a credible source to support them. You simply try to bombard someone with your opinion yet don't cite any support to make it persuasive.

Imagine if one day I'm having the same discussion with someone else and they rationally cite credible support for an opposing viewpoint. Am I'm supposed to say, you know, I had this same discussion in the past and some guy on the Roosh Forum named Tail Gunner said...(?)

If all you have is an opinion and the insistence that it's right, then just make your point once and let's agree to disagree. I don't find you on your own credible enough to go against world opinion verified by polling and my own experiences abroad.

But even in the foreign policy arena, I think most of the world's people (forget about pundits and elites) respect Democratic Party Presidents more than Republicans. Bill Clinton is arguably more popular abroad post-presidency than he was during president. He commands enormously high fees on the lecture circuit and is invited to all kinds of international organizations, think thanks, etc. He gets mobbed wherever he goes.

FDR was going to win a fourth consecutive election (the only
President to serve more than two terms). His leadership during WWII was legendary.

Every American President has had foreign policy blunders, and that alone could take easily take up another thread. Hell, GWB's presidency on its own could. Let's not go into that. Let's just agree to disagree.

As Nelson Mandela wisely said once, "Only armchair politicians are immune from committing mistakes. Errors are inherent in political action. Those who are in the centre of political struggle, who have to deal with practical and pressing problems, are afforded little time for reflection and no precedents to guide them and are bound to slip up many times."

For future reference, here's a flow chart to guide you on what constitutes a "rational" discussion. Cheers.

Post: #78

(01-18-2014 06:16 PM)greensteelhead Wrote:  Who gives a flying fuck about how other countries see us? As the lesbo that this thread is about says. "What does it matter anyway?" Besides, Tailgunner, you are projecting your own view on the rest of the world. Yes, your log-in shows you are a fellow 'Murican.

You are projecting a totally Beta view of how American foreign policy should be conducted. If we had an Alpha running the show and running foreign policy like they run game (i.e., Putin), this whole "far more respected" bullshit would be put to rest. We have not had an Alpha running foreign policy in a long, long time.

Stop the flow of foreign aid, stop the endless foreign wars, get us out of the Middle East entanglements and stop destroying our industrial base with stupid treaties. Is that so fucking hard?

Bill-ary ain't doing any of those things.

Tail Gunner is right in that certain "allies" in geopolitically relevant regions are concerned about the US foreign policy shift. But where I disagree is that it means the US is somehow weak. I'd say it's becoming more shrewd in light of changing dynamics post 9/11.
This short video does a better job than I ever could in explaining those developments.





As the world's only superpower left, the US has to always maintain a "geopolitical balance" in critical regions in order to prevent a regional hegemony from expanding its power and eventually rivaling the US.

Wrt China, the US doesn't need to do much except to support its adversaries. China has enough rivaling states in its neighborhood to keep it in check (Japan, India, Russia, even Vietnam).

In the Middle East, Bush's decision to go into Iraq inadvertently ended up strengthening Iran (a Shia Muslim country), by replacing a Sunni-led government with a Shia-led government sympathetic to Tehran. Even Iraq's first postwar President spent his formative years living in Iran in exile from Sadaam Hussein's rule.

Iran now has increased political and economic influence in Iraq as well as unfettered access from the Gulf to the Mediterranean through an Iran - Iraq - Syria (Al-Assad) - Lebanon (Hezbollah) axis, all Shia-dominated actors. It's even strengthening its influence in Bahrain (a Shia majority country ruled by a Sunni monarchy that is now in intense negotiations with an emboldened Shia opposition). This is undoubtedly concerning the Saudis (the home of Sunni Islam) who are the arch-nemesis of the Iranian leadership. They are not too pleased to see Obama's government opening up to Iran, but fuck them. Iran has surpassed Saudi Arabia in importance with respect to the new geopolitical chessboard.









Also, while Bush got the US knee-deep in the Middle East, a resurgent Russia led by Putin decided to expand Russia's influence in the former Soviet states, and he has succeeded. He even managed to get some diplomatic points in the Syria crisis. Here's another video that explains this well.





The US has no choice but to be involved in the affairs of other countries to some degree. However, the geopolitical chessboard is always changing and today's allies can quickly become tomorrow's enemies.

Post: #79

Who is ready for three years of news stories about why the US is finally ready for it's first woman president?

The media is going to blanket the country in this propaganda.

Post: #80

Post: #81

I agree with the other commenters saying she may not win; she had "inevitable" written all over her back in 2006-2007 and then what happened? She got swept away by a junior Senator.

This time around her game plan seems to be paying/scaring off her challengers but that may come back and bite her in the a$$ when folks leak those details.

Too much possible new talent to call it yet.

Post: #82

That, or we have a military coup. Obama has been purging a lot of high level officers. These men just don't disappear.

Post: #83

(01-17-2014 09:00 PM)TheMachinist Wrote:  That broad would trump Obama as the worst president in history.If she gets elected it proves my point that everybody doesn't deserve to vote.Skin color or gender aint got nothing to do with it.Id bet well over half of the people that vote democrat have no idea what the 2 parties stand for.Let alone the fact that democrats have done more to destroy America since the 60's than any body else.Broken homes,feminism,entitlement...all that lays at their feet.

I would say that anybody who thinks Obama is the worst president is wrong, just as anyone who thinks that George W. Bush was the worst is wrong. The worst president, James Buchanan, had the ability to delay (and possibly shorten) the Civil War, but he did nothing.

Rather, he simply fanned its flames and was at least partially responsible for the deaths of nearly 800,000 men.

Post: #84

(01-18-2014 11:14 PM)Draugr Wrote:  That, or we have a military coup. Obama has been purging a lot of high level officers. These men just don't disappear.

As much as I respect the officers and men of the armed services... I don't think any of them would lead an army against the country they swore to defend. Also, I'm really unsure as to how competent our upper-level commanders are. They seem to range from very good to poor.

Post: #85

(01-19-2014 01:05 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  The worst president, James Buchanan,

Post: #86

(01-18-2014 10:41 PM)tmason Wrote:  I agree with the other commenters saying she may not win; she had "inevitable" written all over her back in 2006-2007 and then what happened? She got swept away by a junior Senator.

This time around her game plan seems to be paying/scaring off her challengers but that may come back and bite her in the a$$ when folks leak those details.

Too much possible new talent to call it yet.

She's been deemed "the best choice" and "inevitable" since roughly 2007. While I think she may have done a better job than Obama, there's no way to know. Personally, I think that a lot of the talk of her experience and credentials is way overblown. She really didn't accomplish much of substance as Secretary of State or as a Senator, and you could make a case that she left us in a significantly worse foreign affairs position than we were in when she started.

Post: #87

(01-19-2014 01:11 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 01:05 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  The worst president, James Buchanan,

Actually, not completely unlikely. While I don't put much stock in anything James Loewen says (he's very left wing), historical evidence seems to suggest that Buchanan was in a relationship with William Rufus King until King's 1853 death.

Post: #88

(01-18-2014 09:58 PM)cool Wrote:  Who is ready for three years of news stories about why the US is finally ready for it's first woman president?

The media is going to blanket the country in this propaganda.

It's going to be off-the-charts intense. They'll do it from every angle imaginable and the burden will always be on you, the male follower to 'do the right thing', not be sexist and elect Hillary 'for the good of the country'. The regulars in the mainstream media can't even fathom why anyone would not vote for Hillary at this point.

They will just follow the Obama template they mostly used but this time they realize they've got much of the women's vote locked up so they'll have to fine tune it a bit, especially with Hispanic and Black men (which I'm not sure how they'll do it, but rest assured they will try - I'm really interested in that angle, and suppose it'll just be more Democratic pandering with free sh*t (which they'll do for most everyone I guess really)). I can't imagine any white men over say 35 voting for her as she drives them nuts, but they won't be the deciding block anyway and I assume the under 30 crowd will be deemed fair game.

Edit: I'm not convinced Hillary will have the women's vote locked up, certainly not in the way that Obama had the black vote tied down last go around, but I bet at the end of the day a lot of women will have a real hard time not voting for "the US of A's first woman president". The 'you go girl' feel good culture is massive and unrelenting and half the women out there think they've been victims from time immemorial so I would not downplay that sort of mindset and how it will sway many women at the end of the day.

I just don't see her losing - no chance. The media and popular sentiment will have her back the whole way and the Dems seem to be smarter about how they do these elections and the candidates they choose. I don't think the Republicans have anyone that stands out as being a strong candidate at this point. She'd basically have to do something like bang Dennis Rodman in North Korea while while denouncing Feminism in front of a live audience to p*ss enough people off to not vote for her!!!

By the time the media get done dressing her up she'll be a version of Elizabeth the Great, Madame Curie, Marilyn Monroe and Mother Teresa all wrapped up into one big special snowflake!

Post: #89

(01-19-2014 01:11 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  She's been deemed "the best choice" and "inevitable" since roughly 2007. While I think she may have done a better job than Obama, there's no way to know. Personally, I think that a lot of the talk of her experience and credentials is way overblown. She really didn't accomplish much of substance as Secretary of State or as a Senator, and you could make a case that she left us in a significantly worse foreign affairs position than we were in when she started.

Which is precisely why she is weaker than she appears to be.

A smart Republican will point to all of these years in office and say "for What?"

That is, if any smart Republicans are left.

Post: #90

She's inevitable on paper until you remember Hillary the candidate. She has no charisma. No natural ability to connect with a crowd, or a television audience. She comes across as touchy. Constantly irritated. Her smile seems painted on. Obama meanwhile sounded like Martin Luther King and appeared to have passion. It wasn't until he got elected that he started sounding like such a dork. Obama vs. Hillary was JFK vs. Nixon in that 1960 debate.

She's charmless. Which is weird, because she's married to a guy who could sell sand to the Saudis and make it feel natural. I don't know if she just flat out doesn't have the ability to examine/ alter her persona or feels she'd be debasing herself somehow. But for the "undecided voter" it comes down to: who do you want to watch on TV for the next 4 years. Not Hillary.

Same deal with McCain in the 2000 primary. What a candidate on paper. Self-sacrificing war hero who wasn't afraid to go against his party. Had some pet positions that made even liberals love him. But enough time under the camera lights, he came across as a cranky, doddering old coot. Meanwhile W was able to pass his blue-blooded ass off as a beer-swilling Hee Haw fan just like you reg'lar folks. There was the part where his campaign called every house in Carolina saying McCain had a secret negro love child, too, but mostly it was that George W. had charm.

Hillary has a great resume. But she is such a charisma sinkhole that everyone sees her as an alien creature who exists solely to build that resume. She inspires no one, and even her allies back her out of opportunism or fear.

She's smart though. Probably would have handled congress much better than Obama has. Would she be a good president? Who knows. Who cares. Politics is about getting the job, not doing the job.

Post: #91

(01-19-2014 02:52 PM)delicioustacos Wrote:  She's inevitable on paper until you remember Hillary the candidate. She has no charisma. No natural ability to connect with a crowd, or a television audience. She comes across as touchy. Constantly irritated. Her smile seems painted on. Obama meanwhile sounded like Martin Luther King and appeared to have passion. It wasn't until he got elected that he started sounding like such a dork. Obama vs. Hillary was JFK vs. Nixon in that 1960 debate.

She's charmless. Which is weird, because she's married to a guy who could sell sand to the Saudis and make it feel natural. I don't know if she just flat out doesn't have the ability to examine/ alter her persona or feels she'd be debasing herself somehow. But for the "undecided voter" it comes down to: who do you want to watch on TV for the next 4 years. Not Hillary.

Same deal with McCain in the 2000 primary. What a candidate on paper. Self-sacrificing war hero who wasn't afraid to go against his party. Had some pet positions that made even liberals love him. But enough time under the camera lights, he came across as a cranky, doddering old coot. Meanwhile W was able to pass his blue-blooded ass off as a beer-swilling Hee Haw fan just like you reg'lar folks. There was the part where his campaign called every house in Carolina saying McCain had a secret negro love child, too, but mostly it was that George W. had charm.

Hillary has a great resume. But she is such a charisma sinkhole that everyone sees her as an alien creature who exists solely to build that resume. She inspires no one, and even her allies back her out of opportunism or fear.

She's smart though. Probably would have handled congress much better than Obama has. Would she be a good president? Who knows. Who cares. Politics is about getting the job, not doing the job.

Great points all but will it matter when the media dress her up and make her look good?

I think at this point her PR people are all over the issues you've so elegantly stated above, and will just instruct her to be pretty cautious throughout the campaign and not push any of the contentious stuff. Basically she'll get turned into a moderate Democrat with mostly reasonable positions who appeals to both sides of the aisle for the most part. Think more "abortion should be safe, legal and rare" as opposed to 'it takes a village'.

And among the big media outlets you'll have the Fox News crowd attacking her but that's it - so nobody will even hear about the negative stuff, particularly the feminist PC crap that this forum cares a lot about.

Post: #92

(01-19-2014 03:00 PM)Akula Wrote:  Great points all but will it matter when the media dress her up and make her look good?

That could happen. But I could also see the media taking her down a peg because she's a strong front runner. They don't want inevitability. They want a nail biter. Election season for the news channels is like Christmas for retailers.

Post: #93

(01-19-2014 03:00 PM)Akula Wrote:  Great points all but will it matter when the media dress her up and make her look good?

Of course it will. That's how Barack Obama zoomed past her. Granted he was the "first serious black candidate" but your ability to sell matters.

The media doesn't give a shit about Hillary per say; they just want a story. The minute a smooth talker steps up to the plate the whole narrative with shift to "will this person upend Hillary?"

Compare, say, Gov. Martin O'Malley of MD to Hillary:

Martin O'Malley:





No need to watch the whole video. But skip around.

Smooth talking. Comfortable. Young.

Now, Watch Hillary:





Skip around. Scripted. Static.

And this was April of last year.

She's going to come across as worn out. Old. Bitchy Old.

Post: #94

Not sure where this came from, probably better that way.

Quote:Hillary Clinton goes to a primary school in New York to talk about the world. After her talk she offers question time. One little boy puts up his hand, and the Senator asks him for his name. "Kenneth." "And what is your question, Kenneth?" "I have three questions: First - whatever happened to your medical health care plan? Second - why would you run for President after your husband shamed the office? And third - whatever happened to all those things you took when you left the White House?" Just then the bell rings for recess. Hillary Clinton informs the kiddies that they will continue after recess. When they resume Hillary says, "Okay where were we? Oh, that's right, question time. Who has a question?" A different little boy puts his hand up; Hillary points him out and asks him for his name. "Larry." "And what is your question?" "I have five questions: First - whatever happened to your medical health care plan? Second - why would you run for President after your husband shamed the office? Third - whatever happened to all those things you took when you left the White House? Fourth - why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early? And fifth - what happened to Kenneth?"

Post: #95

The real question is, who are the GOP going to put forward to challenge her?

The options looks pretty thin.

Post: #96

(01-19-2014 05:25 PM)Vicious Wrote:  The real question is, who are the GOP going to put forward to challenge her?

The options looks pretty thin.

Paul Ryan seems to be their strongest card. And he is weak.

Heh...

Post: #97

(01-18-2014 11:14 PM)Draugr Wrote:  That, or we have a military coup. Obama has been purging a lot of high level officers. These men just don't disappear.

They don't disappear. They go get jobs at defense contractors.

The bureaucratic nature of today's military makes coups highly unlikely in America. Traditionally, generals are almost gods to their men. The men of the XIII Legion followed Julius Caeser into rebellion against Rome. The men of the Army of Northern Virginia would have probably kept fighting for Robert E. Lee indefinitely.

Our army doesn't work like that anymore. Officers rotate through leadership positions staying for as little as a year. A soldier who spends three years in an infantry division can have as many as three different commanding generals in that time.

As for who is going to be running in 2016, it's almost impossible to say. For one thing lots of people pretend to run just to up their brand and make bank writing books and doing speaking gigs. Newt Gingrich, for instance, barely had a campaign staff. Donald Trump was the worst offender. Trump was never ever going to be a serious candidate; he'd never agree to the financial disclosures for one thing.

At this point, you can talk about who has name recognition, but name recognition only gets you so far. To be a serious candidate, you have to put together a serious campaign. Hilary can definitely do that, but it's almost impossible to say who else can.

Post: #98

Hillary Clinton (Mrs. Bill Clinton, as I call her out of spite) has, and maybe still, served on the board of WalMart. This is a company that continues to exploit its employees with poor wages and minimal benefits. She'll have some explaining to do if she claims to represent the average working person, especially low-wage single moms.

Just another wealthy, opportunistic puppet in the service of the elites.

Post: #99

Hillary is an old hag.

I hope that will limit her appeal.

Post: #100

(01-19-2014 03:17 PM)delicioustacos Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 03:00 PM)Akula Wrote:  Great points all but will it matter when the media dress her up and make her look good?

Election season for the news channels is like Christmas for retailers.

Well put. Politics in America is merely another branch of the entertainment business.