Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[drogulus]

     The desired outcome is a Sunni ruled Syria cutting the Shia link between Hezbollah and Iran. It's the religious balance of power after ISIS is destroyed as a caliphate that will concern us. Iran and Russia are in alliance in supporting the Alawites, we support any Sunnis that will renounce terror and cooperate in Syria, Iraq and Kurdistan. The tricky bit is the Shia government in Iraq. We need each other when that thing you all don't want to happen happens, that is more than it's happening now.

     While all of you decide for peace or war I want to know what I can find out about what wars we're fighting and what the next one will be.

Just a quick question before you go to bed: What specific interests does the US have in Ukraine?

      Our interest is to bleed the Russians white at the lowest cost to us.

[Todd]

Our interest is to bleed the Russians white at the lowest cost to us.

Why?

[drogulus]

Why?

     Our policy is to extract the maximum cost for their actions in the Crimea and the Ukraine, Syria and Iran. Our interest is the interest of holding the system of cooperation together by punishing defectors.

[Todd]

Our policy is to extract the maximum cost for their actions in the Crimea and the Ukraine, Syria and Iran.

That is not our policy.  That is what you want the policy to be. 

Your statement is divorced from a more complicated reality.  Russian actions with regard to Syria include aiding the US in ridding Syria of chemical weapons.  Though you no doubt hate it, Russian actions now to bolster Assad will, or could, help set the stage for a long-term political settlement that will help the US end its illegal war in Syria.  Russian actions with regard to Iran include working with the US to secure a nuclear deal and within the last couple weeks taking delivery of Iranian nuclear material.

Our interest is the interest of holding the system of cooperation together by punishing defectors.

Written like a true Imperialist.

[drogulus]

That is not our policy.  That is what you want the policy to be. 

Your statement is divorced from a more complicated reality.  Russian actions with regard to Syria include aiding the US in ridding Syria of chemical weapons.  Though you no doubt hate it, Russian actions now to bolster Assad will, or could, help set the stage for a long-term political settlement that will help the US end its illegal war in Syria.  Russian actions with regard to Iran include working with the US to secure a nuclear deal and within the last couple weeks taking delivery of Iranian nuclear material.




Written like a true Imperialist.

     I don't disagree with any of that. We are a kind of imperialist power. That will include rewards and punishments. Idealists in both camps are afraid there will be too much war or peace. I'm concerned with timing and preparation. What it will be like when a war we don't want happens matters as much as wanting the wrong war, and a bad choice doesn't prevent the same choice from presenting itself soon. History doesn't end.

[kishnevi]

This is the problem, he screwed up in all of them and you are praising his waffling and weakness. His actions will bring us less security down the line. I don't think he could have handled foreign policy much worse in Ukraine or Syria.  Of course, some of the candidate positions are even worse, but then it is too early to tell if they believe all of what they say.

The question is,  how could he have done better in the Ukraine.  I think the only way to keep Putin from doing what he wants in the Ukraine is to actually have a war, with everything that entails,  because Putin seems to disregard anything else--and he knows no one will go to war with him in his own backyard.

In Syria, too,  the same question:  how to do better?  The choice among groups that are effective at opposing Assad all seem to be one or another type of jihadi, with the secular groups rather ineffective.  And remember when there seemed to be the possibility that we would actually do something against Assad militarily, a whole bunch of people from both right and left popped up in opposition to it. 

I don't like the Iran deal.  I don't think we are in a position to go to war with them (again, I think anything less would not dissuade the mullahs),  but in this case, we had a third choice--to have no deal and not give formal acquiescence in their plans.

[drogulus]

I don't like the Iran deal.  I don't think we are in a position to go to war with them (again, I think anything less would not dissuade the mullahs),  but in this case, we had a third choice--to have no deal and not give formal acquiescence in their plans.

     It's better to have the deal and let Iran break it. As for war with them, they have room to maneuver to avoid triggering it. They can talk to Israel through intermediaries.

[Todd]

We are a kind of imperialist power.

You can drop "kind of". 

I'm not sure what "a war we don't want" is supposed to mean, other than, perhaps, a recognition that the US engages in wars of choice - that is, wars of aggression - in all but the rarest cases.

and he knows no one will go to war with him in his own backyard.

If Bush wouldn't do it, nobody will do it.

[drogulus]

You can drop "kind of". 

I'm not sure what "a war we don't want" is supposed to mean, other than, perhaps, a recognition that the US engages in wars of choice - that is, wars of aggression - in all but the rarest cases.

Of course it does. All wars are wars of choice. It's not always our choice, at least at first, but someone chooses for war or it won't happen. Our task is to figure out when to choose for war or when to let it be the choice of someone else.

[Todd]

Of course it does. All wars are wars of choice. It's not always our choice, at least at first, but someone chooses for war or it won't happen. Our task is to figure out when to choose for war or when to let it be the choice of someone else.

I like what you attempted to do here.  It failed, but nice try.

[Karl Henning]

Bernie Sanders raised more than $33 million in the last fundraising cycle, $4 million shy of Democratic frontrunner Clinton's total. More significantly, with a sturdy base of supporters, Sanders's average donation amounts to $27.

RTWT here.

[Karl Henning]

Does 'GOP establishment' really exist?

[drogulus]

     Trump injures neck in campaign stunt

     Candidate heard to shout "It's all for you, Damien!"

     Spokesperson claims "He's just fucking with you."

[bwv 1080]

Trump is third behind Rubio and Cruz, Sanders is only at a 15% chance to win the nomination

http://electionbettingodds.com

(Prediction markets arent perfect, but better than polls or pundits)

[Todd]

(Prediction markets arent perfect, but better than polls or pundits)

Hillary better be careful.  Down three points in a week to a lowly 87% chance of getting the Democratic nod . . .

[Karl Henning]

I think that's still Coronation range.

Separately:  The clear choice of the White Supremacist

[Karl Henning]

Mind you, it's an Op-Ed piece:

Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.

RTWT here.

[Todd]

Mind you, it's an Op-Ed piece:

RTWT here.

SCOTUS has never ruled on it, so no one can say for sure.  In order for a court ruling to be issued, Cruz would have to win the Presidency, because until that point, no has standing to sue.  I suspect even with Scalia and Thomas on the court, someone like Cruz (or McCain) would be considered eligible.

I do find the ending a bit too imprecise: "And on this issue, the law is clear: The framers of the Constitution required the president of the United States to be born in the United States."

The first seven presidents, along with William Henry Harrison, were all born in British colonies, not an independent United States.  If you're gonna split hairs, split 'em right.

[Karl Henning]

SCOTUS has never ruled on it, so no one can say for sure.  In order for a court ruling to be issued, Cruz would have to win the Presidency, because until that point, no has standing to sue.  I suspect even with Scalia and Thomas on the court, someone like Cruz (or McCain) would be considered eligible.

I do find the ending a bit too imprecise: "And on this issue, the law is clear: The framers of the Constitution required the president of the United States to be born in the United States."

The first seven presidents, along with William Henry Harrison, were all born in British colonies, not an independent United States.  If you're gonna split hairs, split 'em right.

Agreed, that it may not be clear in quite the ways the writer suggests.

[Florestan]

I do find the ending a bit too imprecise: "And on this issue, the law is clear: The framers of the Constitution required the president of the United States to be born in the United States."

The first seven presidents, along with William Henry Harrison, were all born in British colonies, not an independent United States.  If you're gonna split hairs, split 'em right.

Hah!