McMullin
Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2016 8:49 am
What's the deal with this guy, ex-CIA... could he become POTUS?
Pretty sure he's only there to stop Trump from winning.Sandydragon wrote:Doubtful I would suggest, unless he can magic up some serious finance and convince the tribal voters to n=vote independent for a change.
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 wrote: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.
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.Zhivago wrote: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 wrote: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.
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.Zhivago wrote: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 wrote: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.
Is that possible?cashead wrote: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.
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 wrote: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.Zhivago wrote: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 wrote: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.
That's before he manages to split the US in 2 with the constant attacks on anyone who isn't white.
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 wrote: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 wrote: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.Zhivago wrote:
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.
That's before he manages to split the US in 2 with the constant attacks on anyone who isn't white.
You are having a laugh. Hillary is much more of a hawk than Trump.Sandydragon wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:
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.
https://thinkprogress.org/9-terrifying- ... .le2ovaowgZhivago wrote:You are having a laugh. Hillary is much more of a hawk than Trump.Sandydragon wrote: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 wrote:
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.
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...Eugene Wrayburn wrote:https://thinkprogress.org/9-terrifying- ... .le2ovaowgZhivago wrote:You are having a laugh. Hillary is much more of a hawk than Trump.Sandydragon wrote:
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.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... thinks-so/
That's before one starts looking at what he says about dealing with ISIS.
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 wrote: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...Eugene Wrayburn wrote:https://thinkprogress.org/9-terrifying- ... .le2ovaowgZhivago wrote:
You are having a laugh. Hillary is much more of a hawk than Trump.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... thinks-so/
That's before one starts looking at what he says about dealing with ISIS.
But I reckon he's less of a hawk on the basis that he is consistently isolationist.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -attacked/Eugene Wrayburn wrote: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 wrote: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...Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
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.
But I reckon he's less of a hawk on the basis that he is consistently isolationist.
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".Zhivago wrote:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -attacked/Eugene Wrayburn wrote: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 wrote:
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.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... ign-policy
Militarism and isolationism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.Eugene Wrayburn wrote: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".Zhivago wrote:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -attacked/Eugene Wrayburn wrote: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.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... ign-policy
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.
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 wrote:Militarism and isolationism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.Eugene Wrayburn wrote: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.
Even so, I don't see any articles calling Hillary an isolationist, so I rest my case that she is more hawkish.Eugene Wrayburn wrote: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 wrote:Militarism and isolationism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.Eugene Wrayburn wrote: 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.
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.Zhivago wrote:Even so, I don't see any articles calling Hillary an isolationist, so I rest my case that she is more hawkish.Eugene Wrayburn wrote: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 wrote:
Militarism and isolationism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
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 wrote: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.Zhivago wrote:Even so, I don't see any articles calling Hillary an isolationist, so I rest my case that she is more hawkish.Eugene Wrayburn wrote: 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.
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.
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.Eugene Wrayburn wrote: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 wrote: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.Zhivago wrote:
Even so, I don't see any articles calling Hillary an isolationist, so I rest my case that she is more hawkish.
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.