McMullin

[Zhivago]

What's the deal with this guy, ex-CIA... could he become POTUS?

[Sandydragon]

Doubtful I would suggest, unless he can magic up some serious finance and convince the tribal voters to n=vote independent for a change.

[Zhivago]

Doubtful I would suggest, unless he can magic up some serious finance and convince the tribal voters to n=vote independent for a change.

Pretty sure he's only there to stop Trump from winning.

[Sandydragon]

As an alternative for the more thoughtful Republicans? Maybe. Given the dominance of the 2 major parties, I quite like seeing independent candidates in the presidential race, even if they do have practically zero hope of winning.

[Zhivago]

As an alternative for the more thoughtful Republicans? Maybe. Given the dominance of the 2 major parties, I quite like seeing independent candidates in the presidential race, even if they do have practically zero hope of winning.

Exactly, the aim is to split off some of the republican vote. I'd not be surprised if the CIA even has a role in this plan. They cannot be happy with the prospect of a Trump presidency.

[Sandydragon]

As an alternative for the more thoughtful Republicans? Maybe. Given the dominance of the 2 major parties, I quite like seeing independent candidates in the presidential race, even if they do have practically zero hope of winning.

Exactly, the aim is to split off some of the republican vote. I'd not be surprised if the CIA even has a role in this plan. They cannot be happy with the prospect of a Trump presidency.

They would probably get more of a free reign under Trump. But equally, there is plenty to terrify anyone regarding Trump as Commander in Chief. Some of the stories circulating are probably inflated, but just looking at the sheer number of court actions against him, I cant help but feel that his business interests have been questionable and his lack of understanding regarding foreign relations is a potential disaster in the making.

That's before he manages to split the US in 2 with the constant attacks on anyone who isn't white.

[Sandydragon]

As an alternative for the more thoughtful Republicans? Maybe. Given the dominance of the 2 major parties, I quite like seeing independent candidates in the presidential race, even if they do have practically zero hope of winning.

Exactly, the aim is to split off some of the republican vote. I'd not be surprised if the CIA even has a role in this plan. They cannot be happy with the prospect of a Trump presidency.

They would probably get more of a free reign under Trump. But equally, there is plenty to terrify anyone regarding Trump as Commander in Chief. Some of the stories circulating are probably inflated, but just looking at the sheer number of court actions against him, I cant help but feel that his business interests have been questionable and his lack of understanding regarding foreign relations is a potential disaster in the making.

That's before he manages to split the US in 2 with the constant attacks on anyone who isn't white.

[cashead]

Yeah, young Doctor Sivana is in no danger of winning the presidency. He is likely to make the GOP look like an even bigger clusterfuck than it is now though.

[Sandydragon]

Yeah, young Doctor Sivana is in no danger of winning the presidency. He is likely to make the GOP look like an even bigger clusterfuck than it is now though.

Is that possible?

[Zhivago]

As an alternative for the more thoughtful Republicans? Maybe. Given the dominance of the 2 major parties, I quite like seeing independent candidates in the presidential race, even if they do have practically zero hope of winning.

Exactly, the aim is to split off some of the republican vote. I'd not be surprised if the CIA even has a role in this plan. They cannot be happy with the prospect of a Trump presidency.

They would probably get more of a free reign under Trump. But equally, there is plenty to terrify anyone regarding Trump as Commander in Chief. Some of the stories circulating are probably inflated, but just looking at the sheer number of court actions against him, I cant help but feel that his business interests have been questionable and his lack of understanding regarding foreign relations is a potential disaster in the making.

That's before he manages to split the US in 2 with the constant attacks on anyone who isn't white.

You think? I think he'd try to impose his insane plans on them. Build a wall here, blackmail a country with nukes there... etc. No, the CIA doesn't need that shit. Hillary will be much more on board with what they want to do.

[Sandydragon]

Exactly, the aim is to split off some of the republican vote. I'd not be surprised if the CIA even has a role in this plan. They cannot be happy with the prospect of a Trump presidency.

They would probably get more of a free reign under Trump. But equally, there is plenty to terrify anyone regarding Trump as Commander in Chief. Some of the stories circulating are probably inflated, but just looking at the sheer number of court actions against him, I cant help but feel that his business interests have been questionable and his lack of understanding regarding foreign relations is a potential disaster in the making.

That's before he manages to split the US in 2 with the constant attacks on anyone who isn't white.

You think? I think he'd try to impose his insane plans on them. Build a wall here, blackmail a country with nukes there... etc. No, the CIA doesn't need that shit. Hillary will be much more on board with what they want to do.

I have a sneaky feeling that the Donald is more likely to be a fan of Tom Clancy's black foreign policy options than Hillary might be. I suspect that he would find that his domestic agenda was being severely curtailed by congress etc and would find a bit of international intrigue too hard to resist.

[Zhivago]

They would probably get more of a free reign under Trump. But equally, there is plenty to terrify anyone regarding Trump as Commander in Chief. Some of the stories circulating are probably inflated, but just looking at the sheer number of court actions against him, I cant help but feel that his business interests have been questionable and his lack of understanding regarding foreign relations is a potential disaster in the making.

That's before he manages to split the US in 2 with the constant attacks on anyone who isn't white.

You think? I think he'd try to impose his insane plans on them. Build a wall here, blackmail a country with nukes there... etc. No, the CIA doesn't need that shit. Hillary will be much more on board with what they want to do.

I have a sneaky feeling that the Donald is more likely to be a fan of Tom Clancy's black foreign policy options than Hillary might be. I suspect that he would find that his domestic agenda was being severely curtailed by congress etc and would find a bit of international intrigue too hard to resist.

You are having a laugh. Hillary is much more of a hawk than Trump.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

You think? I think he'd try to impose his insane plans on them. Build a wall here, blackmail a country with nukes there... etc. No, the CIA doesn't need that shit. Hillary will be much more on board with what they want to do.

I have a sneaky feeling that the Donald is more likely to be a fan of Tom Clancy's black foreign policy options than Hillary might be. I suspect that he would find that his domestic agenda was being severely curtailed by congress etc and would find a bit of international intrigue too hard to resist.

You are having a laugh. Hillary is much more of a hawk than Trump.

https://thinkprogress.org/9-terrifying- ... .le2ovaowg

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... thinks-so/

That's before one starts looking at what he says about dealing with ISIS.

[Zhivago]

I have a sneaky feeling that the Donald is more likely to be a fan of Tom Clancy's black foreign policy options than Hillary might be. I suspect that he would find that his domestic agenda was being severely curtailed by congress etc and would find a bit of international intrigue too hard to resist.

You are having a laugh. Hillary is much more of a hawk than Trump.

https://thinkprogress.org/9-terrifying- ... .le2ovaowg

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... thinks-so/

That's before one starts looking at what he says about dealing with ISIS.

The problem with Trump is he'll say one thing one time and the opposite 5 minutes later. It's therefore hard to discern where exactly his foreign policy is... that's why it's difficult to really tell if he's truly more hawkish than Hillary, or just more of a machistic bullshitter...

But I reckon he's less of a hawk on the basis that he is consistently isolationist.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

You are having a laugh. Hillary is much more of a hawk than Trump.

https://thinkprogress.org/9-terrifying- ... .le2ovaowg

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... thinks-so/

That's before one starts looking at what he says about dealing with ISIS.

The problem with Trump is he'll say one thing one time and the opposite 5 minutes later. It's therefore hard to discern where exactly his foreign policy is... that's why it's difficult to really tell if he's truly more hawkish than Hillary, or just more of a machistic bullshitter...

But I reckon he's less of a hawk on the basis that he is consistently isolationist.

He's not consistently isolationist. He wants to trade but wants a better deal so talks tough against the Chinese. He wants to bomb the hell out of daesh. He is consistently macho, loud and offensive which doesn't bode well for diplomacy.

[Zhivago]

https://thinkprogress.org/9-terrifying- ... .le2ovaowg

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... thinks-so/

That's before one starts looking at what he says about dealing with ISIS.

The problem with Trump is he'll say one thing one time and the opposite 5 minutes later. It's therefore hard to discern where exactly his foreign policy is... that's why it's difficult to really tell if he's truly more hawkish than Hillary, or just more of a machistic bullshitter...

But I reckon he's less of a hawk on the basis that he is consistently isolationist.

He's not consistently isolationist. He wants to trade but wants a better deal so talks tough against the Chinese. He wants to bomb the hell out of daesh. He is consistently macho, loud and offensive which doesn't bode well for diplomacy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -attacked/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... ign-policy

[Eugene Wrayburn]

The problem with Trump is he'll say one thing one time and the opposite 5 minutes later. It's therefore hard to discern where exactly his foreign policy is... that's why it's difficult to really tell if he's truly more hawkish than Hillary, or just more of a machistic bullshitter...

But I reckon he's less of a hawk on the basis that he is consistently isolationist.

He's not consistently isolationist. He wants to trade but wants a better deal so talks tough against the Chinese. He wants to bomb the hell out of daesh. He is consistently macho, loud and offensive which doesn't bode well for diplomacy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -attacked/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... ign-policy

Yes he has been called isolationist including in those articles, the most recent of which is almost 6 months old. That doesn't demonstrate his consistency. Indeed looking at the articles you see him saying that he's going to dismantle Iran's global terrorist network, which doesn't sound either dove-ish or isolationist, together with the "Bomb the shit out of ISIS".

ETA the economist article also makes clear that his plan is a massive build up of American military strength, in the (mistaken) belief that that means that no one will want to mess with them.

[Zhivago]

He's not consistently isolationist. He wants to trade but wants a better deal so talks tough against the Chinese. He wants to bomb the hell out of daesh. He is consistently macho, loud and offensive which doesn't bode well for diplomacy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -attacked/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... ign-policy

Yes he has been called isolationist including in those articles, the most recent of which is almost 6 months old. That doesn't demonstrate his consistency. Indeed looking at the articles you see him saying that he's going to dismantle Iran's global terrorist network, which doesn't sound either dove-ish or isolationist, together with the "Bomb the shit out of ISIS".

ETA the economist article also makes clear that his plan is a massive build up of American military strength, in the (mistaken) belief that that means that no one will want to mess with them.

Militarism and isolationism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -attacked/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... ign-policy

Yes he has been called isolationist including in those articles, the most recent of which is almost 6 months old. That doesn't demonstrate his consistency. Indeed looking at the articles you see him saying that he's going to dismantle Iran's global terrorist network, which doesn't sound either dove-ish or isolationist, together with the "Bomb the shit out of ISIS".

ETA the economist article also makes clear that his plan is a massive build up of American military strength, in the (mistaken) belief that that means that no one will want to mess with them.

Militarism and isolationism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

They aren't, but in a discussion about how much of a hawk he is, the militarism is pretty important when allied to the impetuous and macho personality.

[Zhivago]

Yes he has been called isolationist including in those articles, the most recent of which is almost 6 months old. That doesn't demonstrate his consistency. Indeed looking at the articles you see him saying that he's going to dismantle Iran's global terrorist network, which doesn't sound either dove-ish or isolationist, together with the "Bomb the shit out of ISIS".

ETA the economist article also makes clear that his plan is a massive build up of American military strength, in the (mistaken) belief that that means that no one will want to mess with them.

Militarism and isolationism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

They aren't, but in a discussion about how much of a hawk he is, the militarism is pretty important when allied to the impetuous and macho personality.

Even so, I don't see any articles calling Hillary an isolationist, so I rest my case that she is more hawkish.

[Sandydragon]

With a massive nuclear arsenal, he doesn't need to build up conventional forces to ensure isolationism. No one is going to invade the USand if their internal fuel production keeps apace then the ME will become less important for them.

Every comment he has made of late in the foreign policy arena comes across as simplistic variations of bomb the shyte out of someone. He most certainly is a hawk, it more dangerously, he didn't have anything vaguely approaching a strategy.

To be fair, Obama was lacking in strategic direction, but at least he had some elements of caution.

[cashead]

Militarism and isolationism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

They aren't, but in a discussion about how much of a hawk he is, the militarism is pretty important when allied to the impetuous and macho personality.

Even so, I don't see any articles calling Hillary an isolationist, so I rest my case that she is more hawkish.

Not sure if that really matters. Obama, IIRC, voted against the War in Iraq (dunno about the War on Terror, not sure if he was in congress or the senate or whichever one he was representing Illinois in and can't be bothered to look it up either), but he's been one of the hawkingest Presidents in some time. Bush in 2000 ran on a fairly isolationist platform, talking about reducing the number of US troops abroad but the quagmire that is the wars in the Middle East and the Phillippines and whatever other areas I'm forgetting about, not to mention the build-up of US drones that covers Africa is one of his legacies.

With Obama, you could at least argue that as president, he had to deal with an obstructionist Congress, but Bush doesn't get that excuse.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

They aren't, but in a discussion about how much of a hawk he is, the militarism is pretty important when allied to the impetuous and macho personality.

Even so, I don't see any articles calling Hillary an isolationist, so I rest my case that she is more hawkish.

Not sure if that really matters. Obama, IIRC, voted against the War in Iraq (dunno about the War on Terror, not sure if he was in congress or the senate or whichever one he was representing Illinois in and can't be bothered to look it up either), but he's been one of the hawkingest Presidents in some time. Bush in 2000 ran on a fairly isolationist platform, talking about reducing the number of US troops abroad but the quagmire that is the wars in the Middle East and the Phillippines and whatever other areas I'm forgetting about, not to mention the build-up of US drones that covers Africa is one of his legacies.

With Obama, you could at least argue that as president, he had to deal with an obstructionist Congress, but Bush doesn't get that excuse.

Congress can't make the President go to war, they can only stop him (eventually). Having said that I don't agree with the characterisation of Obama.

[cashead]

Even so, I don't see any articles calling Hillary an isolationist, so I rest my case that she is more hawkish.

Not sure if that really matters. Obama, IIRC, voted against the War in Iraq (dunno about the War on Terror, not sure if he was in congress or the senate or whichever one he was representing Illinois in and can't be bothered to look it up either), but he's been one of the hawkingest Presidents in some time. Bush in 2000 ran on a fairly isolationist platform, talking about reducing the number of US troops abroad but the quagmire that is the wars in the Middle East and the Phillippines and whatever other areas I'm forgetting about, not to mention the build-up of US drones that covers Africa is one of his legacies.

With Obama, you could at least argue that as president, he had to deal with an obstructionist Congress, but Bush doesn't get that excuse.

Congress can't make the President go to war, they can only stop him (eventually). Having said that I don't agree with the characterisation of Obama.

He definitely fits the definition. He's overseen an increase in drone warfare in Africa, escalated the number of troops committed to the Middle East, has been drone striking the shit out of various warzones or neighbouring nations (Pakistan has been getting a shitload of this), has committed troops to sovereign nations not at war with the United States to kill specific individuals, that sort of thing.