Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[The new erato]

The problem is not the outflow (although there are some questions there as to who actually recieves the money) but the inflow.

People donated to the Foundation who had direct sizeable interests in what she decided.  And she knew who they were.

Just like a PAC then? Except that money don't go to charities?

[kishnevi]

     In new blow to campaign, Trump's foundation ordered to halt fundraising

     The order followed a series of reports in The Washington Post that suggested improprieties by the foundation, including using its funds to settle legal disputes involving Trump businesses.

"The failure immediately to discontinue solicitation and to file information and reports required under Article 7-A with the Charities Bureau shall be deemed to be a continuing fraud upon the people of the state of New York," according to a letter dated on Friday that the office posted online on Monday.

     

     Is Trump getting the Clinton scandal treatment from a Dem AG, or is this a legitimate charge? First, we have to understand that Clinton scandals are far more likely to come from the media or partisan committee investigations, not from AGs. The standards are (heh!) different. An AG, regardless of party affiliation, that brings phoney charges can face prosecution, even in Red States! Where are the AGs in Clinton scandals? Are there no Repub AGs? Will no one rid me of this Hildebeast?

Something can be legal but unethical or immoral.  Something can be illegal but still be ethical or immoral.
Surely you learned this fact along the way.

[kishnevi]

Just like a PAC then? Except that money don't go to charities?

That seems to be the case.

[North Star]

The problem is not the outflow (although there are some questions there as to who actually recieves the money) but the inflow.

People donated to the Foundation who had direct sizeable interests in what she decided.  And she knew who they were.

And foreign leaders buy $200 chocolate boxes for the POTUS that are destroyed on receipt under the rules of the Secret Service. Giving to a charity seems like a better idea to me.

[Madiel]

Hillary has an actual track record of promoting death, destruction, and chaos across the greater Middle East and beyond. And she seems to have learned nothing from her many experiences in this area. Just a couple of weeks ago, she was still blustering about "our duty to lead" and so forth. (Which means in plain English, "I'm gonna get us into more wars.")

Trump is grossly inconsistent, but he has made some peace-like noises, of a type I haven't heard from a corporate party candidate in ages. Beyond that, his main interests in life are making money, aggrandizing himself, and generally living the good life. The nuclear destruction of the world would seriously impinge on his hedonism, which is why I think he would show some caution in this area.

You seem to have missed the meaning of my post on a couple of levels.

First of all, I was replying to a proposition about who was most likely to start World War III. Not who was most likely to carry on using the US military. I'm not arguing that Clinton would suddenly be more lovey-dovey than past US presidents. If you think the current administration has been promoting death, destruction and chaos then sure, Clinton will most likely give you more of the same.

Secondly, you seem to have completely missed the point of the part of my post that you snipped out. I'm not arguing that Trump would intentionally start World War III. I'm arguing that there's a high risk of him blundering into it. I'm sure he makes peace overtures while saying such and such people are great and amazing. Not so much while he's accusing China of inventing climate change.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

If you think the current administration has been promoting death, destruction and chaos then sure, Clinton will most likely give you more of the same.

However, what makes it worse is Clinton's rabid attitude to countries that can actually hit back, above all Russia. Unlike her previous targets (e.g. Libya), Russia and China can actually destroy the USA. Obama has been somewhat restrained when dealing with them, but I have no faith that Clinton will be so as well.

So, if you want to get into a devastating shooting match with major powers for no good reason at all, HRC is your clear choice.

Secondly, you seem to have completely missed the point of the part of my post that you snipped out. I'm not arguing that Trump would intentionally start World War III. I'm arguing that there's a high risk of him blundering into it.

Yes, that danger exists.

[Brian]

To me the "Clinton is warlike" argument is similar to the "Clinton is duplicitous" argument - it does have some truth (in fact, even more so than the accusations of lying; her pattern of advocating rash responses that Obama wisely thought twice on, runs deeper than her pattern of concealing facts), but it is grossly overshadowed by the identical flaw in Donald Trump. True, Hillary lied about emails; but Trump lies compulsively about everything. And true, Hillary has shown poor judgment about foreign military incursions, but Trump has been even worse.

This is where Apollo and I disagree -

Trump is grossly inconsistent, but he has made some peace-like noises,

He may have, but he's also said the following things:

"I would bomb the shit out of them. I would just bomb those suckers, and that's right, I'd blow up the pipes, I'd blow up the refineries, I'd blow up every single inch. There'd be nothing left."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWejiXvd-P8

"If we're going to get out, take the oil."

"Can you imagine General Douglas MacArthur or General Patton saying we can't bomb because we're gonna hurt the atmosphere? You have to knock the hell out of the oil."

To Bob Schieffer: "I'm the most militaristic person on your show. I want to have a much stronger military. ...Well, you know, the time to have done [sent troops to Syria] would have been when he drew the line in the sand. I might have gone in. Now it's such a mess over there, with everybody involved, and the airspace is very limited. It's not that big of an area. The airspace is very limited. So are we going to start World War III over Syria?"

Now, that one is interesting because of the nuance it displays. He recognizes that now Syria would be a disastrous military incursion, but in the context of saying that there was a right time to invade. The main concern, honestly, I suspect, is that he does not want to antagonize his buddy, Russia.

"There is something missing from our president. Had he crossed the line and really gone in with force, done something to Assad--if he had gone in with tremendous force, you wouldn't have millions of people displaced all over the world."

"Iran's nuclear program must be stopped--by any and all means necessary. Period."

"I will be the last to use nuclear weapons. It's a horror to use nuclear weapons....I will not be a happy trigger like some people might be. But I will never, ever rule it out."

"I will have a military that's so strong and powerful, and so respected, we're not gonna have to nuke anybody."

And here's a book excerpt from 2000 - old, but relevant:

[In a Trump presidency], North Korea would suddenly discover that its worthless promises of civilized behavior would cut no ice. I would let Pyongyang know in no uncertain terms that it can either get out of the nuclear arms race or expect a rebuke similar to the one Ronald Reagan delivered to Ghadhafi in 1986. I don't think anybody is going to accuse me of tiptoeing through the issues or tap-dancing around them either. Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?

[drogulus]

     

However, what makes it worse is Clinton's rabid attitude to countries that can actually hit back, above all Russia.

     It is Russia that is taking a more aggressive stance with its nuclear weapons policy, not an American SheBeast. Clinton is vastly better to have as President than an insecure Orange Baby that gets a baby hard on when Putin "praises" him.

     

[drogulus]

 
     How do all of you think appeasement will work with Putin? I'm just asking.

     Putin does not think he can take the Baltic states without firing a shot, he thinks he can take them without us firing a shot. Is that true? Will it also be true of Poland?

     What should U.S. policy be towards the defense of NATO countries? We better let them know if they're on their own, it's only fair that they should know the alliance leader is planning to betray them.

     How far does this go?

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Brian -

Point taken, and to reiterate, I am not actually voting for Trump. But I will not vote for HRC under any circumstances. A couple of articles for your consideration:

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/09/27/debate-trumps-three-points-peace/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2016/09/26/wannabe-global-dominatrix-hillary-clinton-never-met-a-war-she-didnt-want-other-americans-to-fight/#213c2b8e6aa9

     Putin does not think he can take the Baltic states without firing a shot, he thinks he can take them without us firing a shot. Is that true? Will it also be true of Poland?
 

Why even bring this up? Poland is a member of the EU and NATO, and there are no territorial disputes currently existing between it and Russia. I can think of a dozen places where conflict is more likely to flare than between Russia and Poland.

[drogulus]

Why even bring this up? Poland is a member of the EU and NATO, and there are no territorial disputes currently existing between it and Russia. I can think of a dozen places where conflict is more likely to flare than between Russia and Poland.

     Right, exactly right, why bring it up? Why even bring it up, even. It's not like Putin is going to invade a sovereign country.

    "Poland belongs to the group of European Union member states that will be most affected by an aggressive Russian foreign policy. Poland has a direct border with the Russian exclave, Kaliningrad Oblast, which because of its strategic location will remain the most militarised region in Europe. At the same time, Russia sees Kaliningrad as a vulnerable outpost because it is surrounded by the most "hawkish" NATO member states (Lithuania and Poland). If the Kremlin were to decide to have a local, short war with NATO, the Baltic republics would be among the most obvious targets for Russian military aggression. And if the conflict were to escalate, Russia would probably want to neutralise Poland by occupying the Polish-Lithuanian border region (the Suwałki corridor) located between Kaliningrad and Belarus."

     Maybe Putin is a little ahead of you in terms of what he thinks about. What do you think? Where do you think he'll go next?

     One last point, what will it mean for Poland if we disavow our NATO commitments? And finally, what will it mean for the U.S. if we don't?

[drogulus]

     

     An unpredictable Russia: the impact on Poland

     Let me remind you that the warmongering Poles have a nasty habit of provoking invasions of their country. It won't take a Putin-Trump Nonagression Pact either, they'll do it just to spite us.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

     One last point, what will it mean for Poland if we disavow our NATO commitments? And finally, what will it mean for the U.S. if we don't?

Presumably, it will mean that Poland and other European countries will have to make their own security arrangements. How is this bad for the people of the USA?

This is the value of the Trump campaign: in his crude vulgar way, he raises the issues that are sitting there in plain sight, but which our elites don't want to touch. Case in point: why are we providing an ever-expanding range of security guarantees to European and Asian countries that are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves? And do you sleep more soundly, knowing that great military powers like Albania and Montenegro are looking out for us?

[The new erato]

That seems to be the case.

Then I think influencing politics through the Clinton foundations seems like a better idea.

[Turner]

Maybe Putin is a little ahead of you in terms of what he thinks about. What do you think? Where do you think he'll go next?

I didn´t watch the vice-president debate yesterday, but reports are very clear: Pence showed a hardliner attitude towards Putin, but also said notoriously untrue things about Trump having the same attitude. There are 2 possibilities regarding this: 1) Trump and Pence are presenting both opinions in order to attract voters of both opinions 2) Trump and Pence don´t communicate enough, and Pence is ignorant of Trump´s views. Both options are not very attractive, and suggest a less coherent policy than that of the Democrats.

I agree that the Russia situation, in particular also the militarization of the public mind there - is very worrying.

It´s been increasing in the last couple of years, and Russia has simply got all the signs of a violent dictatorship now. Besides the invasion of Ukraine, the undermining of Western democracies into freak shows by supporting left- and right wing extremists there, the involvement in Syria, it´s causing real headaches in the Baltic region in particular, including Sweden. Russia has also in effect taken parts of Moldova and recently held military exercises there (which however is more of a symbolic piece of land, of no economical value). It´s not realistic that they´ll invade Poland though.

Reports are that right now, there are exercises in civil defense in Russia involving 40 mio of the inhabitants, they´ve just started a programme of bomb shelters for 11 mio people in Moscow, the number of military drills is very large, several newspapers talk of a possible, upcoming war, etc. The big question is of course - how much of this is related to real prospects, how much is related to the elite and Putin trying to stay in power, and how much is bargaining material in a power game towards the West.



 

[Herman]

Sorry, Hillary's service is ONLY to herself. Anyone who gets in her way, WATCH OUT!

If self-interest was her motivation she'd had stayed in a law practice and gotten rich that way, long before making money writing a book and giving speeches.

She chose public office. Secretary of State is one of the toughest jobs physically; it's the equivalent of working in a coal mine.

Same thing for the White House. Just look at the in - out pictures of most presidents.

[zamyrabyrd]

If self-interest was her motivation she'd had stayed in a law practice and gotten rich that way, long before making money writing a book and giving speeches.
She chose public office. Secretary of State is one of the toughest jobs physically; it's the equivalent of working in a coal mine.
Same thing for the White House. Just look at the in - out pictures of most presidents.

I am not going to repeat all the incriminating evidence against Hillary Clinton. It's all there for anyone who cares to read it. More than self-interest or even money (though she has plenty of it), though, she is driven by a craving for POWER. She would have not stuck by Billy-boy, moreover harassing his victims, if he weren't the ticket to getting into the White House yet again. She is in every way, Lady Macbeth, who will do anything, say anything to get that crown on her head.

[Pat B]

The problem is not the outflow (although there are some questions there as to who actually recieves the money) but the inflow.

People donated to the Foundation who had direct sizeable interests in what she decided.  And she knew who they were.

Fair enough. But that could be said of the Trump Foundation too -- and of many PACs and major campaigns.

While we're on the subject: the conservatives of the Roberts Court have taken the position that "Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder's official duties, does not give rise to quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner 'influence over or access to' elected officials or political parties" and that "it is hard to see how a candidate today could receive 'massive amounts of money' that could be traced back to a particular donor" (McCutcheon v. FEC).

From my perspective, they have eliminated corruption, not by ending the practice, but by redefining the word.

[Karl Henning]

I am not going to repeat all the incriminating evidence against Hillary Clinton. It's all there for anyone who cares to read it. More than self-interest or even money (though she has plenty of it), though, she is driven by a craving for POWER. She would have not stuck by Billy-boy, moreover harassing his victims, if he weren't the ticket to getting into the White House yet again. She is in every way, Lady Macbeth, who will do anything, say anything to get that crown on her head.

For the sake of discussion, call this "essentially true, but rhetorically exaggerated" with the supporting exhibit your curious repetition of the substantially debunked "she ripped off the White House furniture!" canard.

It is no argument at all to vote for El Tupé, because exactly the same, and worse, is true of him, only without decades' accrual of political grudge.

"... and worse," e.g.:  the white supremacist cast to his entire effort; the blatant abuse of Trump Foundation monies; the locker-room tone to his discourse; a narcissist who tweets hateful rubbish about a Latina model at 3:20 AM; who instead of apologizing for contemptible slurs against a Gold Star family, claims that he "made sacifices, too!"

&c., &c, &c.  This, too, is out there for anyone to read.

[Karl Henning]

Dana Milbank tells it plain:

Mike Pence gives Republicans buyer's remorse

Had they chosen someone like him as the candidate, they could be winning.

Pence hasn't tweeted about a sex tape at 5 a.m. He hasn't shamed a woman publicly for gaining weight. He didn't mock a political opponent's pneumonia-induced stumble, nor claim that his opponent is "crazy" and unfaithful to her husband, nor suggest that returning soldiers with PTSD are weak.