Your three most salient political issues

[Juror#8]

I'd be interested to know which are the three most important issues for you in the upcoming presidential election cycle.

 

I'm going to take it one step further and tell you who I feel best represents my ideal stance on those issues:

 

1. Border security/Immigration (Donald Trump/Rick Santorum)

 

2. Foreign Policy (Hillary Clinton)

 

3. Energy and Oil (?)

[3rdnlng]

I'd be interested to know which are the three most important issues for you in the upcoming presidential election cycle.

 

I'm going to take it one step further and tell you who I feel best represents my ideal stance on those issues:

 

1. Border security/Immigration (Donald Trump/Rick Santorum)

 

2. Foreign Policy (Hillary Clinton)

 

3. Energy and Oil (?)

The three issues you have named are certainly important ones. While i do not know the specific stances of Trump or Santorum re border security/immigration I am for controlling the border and removing illegal aliens from our midst. I don't have a problem with a guest worker program but it shouldn't be a detriment to the American worker. To all of those people who are clamoring for a new minimum wage, getting rid of some of the labor supply would raise wages naturally.

 

I am bemused by your support of Hillary Clinton's foreign policy. Can you explain what it is? Can she explain what it is? My foreign policy is partly "drill baby drill". We need to make ourselves a net exporter of energy so that we can use energy and energy prices to get our way. We also need a joint policy with government and the energy industry to insure that we have cheap and reliable energy in the U.S. in order to bring back manufacturing to this country.The rest of my foreign policy would include a strong military both defensively and with impeccable offensive ability in order to deter those who would do us harm. A big stick means you have to use it less often.

 

I've already addressed energy, so I'll add my other major concern. We are allowing our government to become the reason for our existence rather than we are the reason for the government's existence. We are getting away from a government by and for the people. In short, we are losing our uniqueness in this world. Whether it has to do with government spying, excessive regulations, entitlements or corruption of government officials we need to reign in a government run amok. Frankly, we need a charismatic leader in the White House who has a backbone of steel and will work to reverse these trends. I know, Reagans and Gretzkys don't grow on trees, but we could manage with a slightly more conservative H.W. Bush.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Listed in no order:

 

Economic and Personal Liberty (Rand Paul)

 

Foreign Policy ( Ted Cruz and Paul)

 

Domestic Economy and Taxation (Paul Ryan)

Edited June 18, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[Juror#8]

The three issues you have named are certainly important ones. While i do not know the specific stances of Trump or Santorum re border security/immigration I am for controlling the border and removing illegal aliens from our midst. I don't have a problem with a guest worker program but it shouldn't be a detriment to the American worker. To all of those people who are clamoring for a new minimum wage, getting rid of some of the labor supply would raise wages naturally.

 

I am bemused by your support of Hillary Clinton's foreign policy. Can you explain what it is? Can she explain what it is? My foreign policy is partly "drill baby drill". We need to make ourselves a net exporter of energy so that we can use energy and energy prices to get our way. We also need a joint policy with government and the energy industry to insure that we have cheap and reliable energy in the U.S. in order to bring back manufacturing to this country.The rest of my foreign policy would include a strong military both defensively and with impeccable offensive ability in order to deter those who would do us harm. A big stick means you have to use it less often.

 

I've already addressed energy, so I'll add my other major concern. We are allowing our government to become the reason for our existence rather than we are the reason for the government's existence. We are getting away from a government by and for the people. In short, we are losing our uniqueness in this world. Whether it has to do with government spying, excessive regulations, entitlements or corruption of government officials we need to reign in a government run amok. Frankly, we need a charismatic leader in the White House who has a backbone of steel and will work to reverse these trends. I know, Reagans and Gretzkys don't grow on trees, but we could manage with a slightly more conservative H.W. Bush.

My preferred foreign policy stance is "interventionist." I believe that there are countless things happening at any point internationally that affect America or American interests. We can't assume that standing idly in some laissez faire foreign policy context will maintain our safety and security by default. Hitler was emboldened by the decided inaction of Britain, France, and the United States during WW2. He used Democracy to consolidate power and then abolished the very institution by which he ascended to power. In response, the international community said, "sure, whatever." Germans started building their military against the admonishments of the Versailles treaty; the international community thought "eh, no big deal." The Germans started encroaching on Czechoslovakia, the "Sudetenland," and declared that it was unjustly taken from them after the first 'Great War"; the international community (except for the Czechs) capitulated.

 

Then the Germans threatened Poland ... the Allies said they would go to war if Germany invaded; Germany said "fukkkk it, they keep rolling over; so why not try this aggression thing again?" So they go after Poland. Britain and France declare a fake war and nary a shot is fired for months - basically nothing transpires, Hitler realizes it was for show, and he becomes even more emboldened...

 

I'm not saying that there are any "Hitler-like" international actors today. But I am saying that that historical development of escalating international conflict could happen again in a more contemporary content if we are glib, reactive, or plain isolationist - or if we simply don't recognize the broader implications of profoundly bad actors even in ostensibly sovereign states.

 

Hillary is simply the most Hawkish of the current candidate field - D or R. She has often times been way out of step with her Denocratic counterparts. You'd be well served to research how she proposed to assist the Syrian Rebels against al-Assads regime. And her opinions on a recent surge into Afghanistan. And just look at her foreign policy voting record vis a vis the Democratic establishment. Heck, contrast her record and rhetoric against the Republicans running. She is a hawk's hawk. Close your eyes, forget her name, and you'll almost think someone is telling you about Duncan Hunter.

 

And when it comes to foreign policy, that's what I like to hear.

 

I don't give a **** about Benghazi and all that jazz - I want someone in office who will happily mix it up and keep the fight away from our borders.

The three issues you have named are certainly important ones. While i do not know the specific stances of Trump or Santorum re border security/immigration I am for controlling the border and removing illegal aliens from our midst. I don't have a problem with a guest worker program but it shouldn't be a detriment to the American worker. To all of those people who are clamoring for a new minimum wage, getting rid of some of the labor supply would raise wages naturally.

With regard to border security, I'm for anyone who is willing to put up a wall, and use a combination of force and modern technology to secure it. Edited June 18, 2015 by Juror#8

[Juror#8]

Listed in no order:

Economic and Personal Liberty (Rand Paul)

Foreign Policy ( Ted Cruz and Paul)

Domestic Economy and Taxation (Paul Ryan)

Aren't Cruz and Paul fairly different on the foreign policy front - with Paul believing in libertarian isolationism, and Cruz being fully willing to commit to military intervention, like, say, in Iran?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Aren't Cruz and Paul fairly different on the foreign policy front - with Paul believing in libertarian isolationism, and Cruz being fully willing to commit to military intervention, like, say, in Iran?

No, their two stances are remarkably similar. It's very important not to confuse Rand's policy and that of his father.

Edited June 18, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[reddogblitz]

It's very important not to confuse Rand's policy and that of his father.

 

Sadly, yes.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Sadly, yes.

I'd very much like for you to explain exactly how a policy of American military and social isolationism works for the betterment of the world, and to the benefit of the United States and it's interests.

 

In your world, are other nations unaggressive and non-expansionist? Are we not dependent on an interconnected global economy which tends to gind to a halt, and even regress, with the the threats of unpredictablitity and instability?

Edited June 18, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[Magox]

No, their two stances are remarkably similar. It's very important not to confuse Rand's policy and that of his father.

Cruz would be more of an interventionist than Rand. In regards to Foreign policy and aside from the NSA stuff, Cruz is pretty closely aligned to the Establishment GOP, whereas Rand isn't.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Cruz would be more of an interventionist than Rand. In regards to Foreign policy and aside from the NSA stuff, Cruz is pretty closely aligned to the Establishment GOP, whereas Rand isn't.

They're both Realists, though Cruz slightly more hawkish.

[ExiledInIllinois]

You had to use the word salient... Did you not forget where you are @?

[reddogblitz]

I'd very much like for you to explain exactly how a policy of American military and social isolationism works for the betterment of the world, and to the benefit of the United States and it's interests.

 

I will later when I have time.

 

In the meantime I'd like you to explain exactly how a policy of American military intervention has worked for the betterment of the world and to our benefit.

 

I look back at many of our previous entanglements and fail to see any benefit. ie. Iraq, Libya, Viet Nam, Iraq again, Grenada, Lebanon ...

 

Add into that that we're often lied to to get support for these entanglements as well. Gulf of Tonkin lie to get us to go all in on Viet Nam and WMDs/nukes/link to Al Queda etc to get us to invade Iraq. So when these things come up, we should be very skeptical IMHO.

 

The first casualty of war is the truth.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

I will later when I have time.

 

In the meantime I'd like you to explain exactly how a policy of American military intervention has worked for the betterment of the world and to our benefit.

 

I look back at many of our previous entanglements and fail to see any benefit. ie. Iraq, Libya, Viet Nam, Iraq again, Grenada, Lebanon ...

 

Add into that that we're often lied to to get support for these entanglements as well. Gulf of Tonkin lie to get us to go all in on Viet Nam and WMDs/nukes/link to Al Queda etc to get us to invade Iraq. So when these things come up, we should be very skeptical IMHO.

 

The first casualty of war is the truth.

 

I already have, multiple times, in another thread you've recently posted in.

[reddogblitz]

 

I already have, multiple times, in another thread you've recently posted in.

 

Can you provide a link to it please?

 

I believe I've explained my side to you as well. I don't mind dong it again, but evidently you do.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Can you provide a link to it please?

 

I believe I've explained my side to you as well. I don't mind dong it again, but evidently you do.

 

No, you've never answered this question:

 

"I'd very much like for you to explain exactly how a policy of American military and social isolationism works for the betterment of the world, and to the benefit of the United States and it's interests.

 

In your world, are other nations unaggressive and non-expansionist? Are we not dependent on an interconnected global economy which tends to gind to a halt, and even regress, with the the threats of unpredictablitity and instability?"

 

You've never even begun to explain what the world looks like with America as it's leader, or what fills the power vacuum in our absence. You've never addressed the global economy's dependance on an American military presence to keep energy flowing, and you've certainly never addressed what replaces that presence or outlined how that replacement would be good for America.

 

You've never addressed the points I've made about an all volunteer military.

 

All you've done is launch into a string of canards which don't address anything I've said or asked. That isn't answering a question.

 

[reddogblitz]

 

You've never even begun to explain what the world looks like with America as it's leader, or what fills the power vacuum in our absence.

 

You like to bring up this power vacuum thing. Seems to me that often when we stick our nose in where it doesn't belong we just end up creating a vacuum that gets filled by guys at least as bad if not worse than the ones we took out. I use Iraq as Exhibit A and Libya as Exhibit B. We'd like to do the same to Syria as well.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

You like to bring up this power vacuum thing. Seems to me that often when we stick our nose in where it doesn't belong we just end up creating a vacuum that gets filled by guys at least as bad if not worse than the ones we took out. I use Iraq as Exhibit A and Libya as Exhibit B. We'd like to do the same to Syria as well.

 

Are you sure you aren't making my argument? Because it sure sounds like you're making my argument.

 

Iraq exists as it does today because America left, and created a power vacuum. The reality is that we don't have the luxury of living in the world as it was 10, 20, 50, 100, 500 years ago. We don't have a time machine or a reset button. Brittish Imperialism happened. Colonialism happened. WW1 happened. WW2 happened. The Soviet Union's collapse happened.

 

The dominos, set in motion hundereds of years ago continue to fall, and since nothing happens in a vacuum, they continue to be both effect of prior causes, as well as causes of future effects.

 

Whether or not you agree with the decision to go into Iraq in the first place isn't relevant. The reality is, that once we were there, we needed to stay there, allowing a strong, quasi-westernized, independent state to emerge there; a state that could be influential on the region, that would become an economic powerhouse because of a secular democratic foundation, and bhecause of it's ample resources. We had to allow for capitalism to influence a cultural shift, and take multi-generation roots in the identity of the citizens.

 

We didn't do that. Instead, populist politicians, seeking nothing but power for themselves, crushed the American will to honor our obligations in Iraq.

 

When we withdrew, we created a power vacuum into which flowed IS.

 

When we withdraw from the world, what do you think will flow in to replace us?

[DC Tom]

 

I will later when I have time.

 

In the meantime I'd like you to explain exactly how a policy of American military intervention has worked for the betterment of the world and to our benefit.

 

I look back at many of our previous entanglements and fail to see any benefit. ie. Iraq, Libya, Viet Nam, Iraq again, Grenada, Lebanon ...

 

Add into that that we're often lied to to get support for these entanglements as well. Gulf of Tonkin lie to get us to go all in on Viet Nam and WMDs/nukes/link to Al Queda etc to get us to invade Iraq. So when these things come up, we should be very skeptical IMHO.

 

The first casualty of war is the truth.

 

You ought to change your screen name to "onetrickpony."

[reddogblitz]

Whether or not you agree with the decision to go into Iraq in the first place isn't relevant. The reality is, that once we were there, we needed to stay there, allowing a strong, quasi-westernized, independent state to emerge there; a state that could be influential on the region, that would become an economic powerhouse because of a secular democratic foundation, and bhecause of it's ample resources. We had to allow for capitalism to influence a cultural shift, and take multi-generation roots in the identity of the citizens.

 

I do agree with you that Iraq would still be somewhat stable if we had left 100,000 or maybe even only 50,000 there. However they would still be getting IED attacks from insurgents no matter how long we stayed. We would be viewed as unlawful invaders to the Iraqi people just as the Germans were viewed by the French for a very long time.

 

No matter where we invade, we're gong to have to leave eventually. And when we do, what happens is predictable. I just don't want to see it happen again. Seems you want to double down.

 

If we were to go with your strategy, we would be better off to just to take it over and stop fooling around. Install 100.000 or more troops and turn it into the 51st state, New Texas. We keep the oil, money etc.

 

But at what expense? Not worth the money and hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of human lives IMHO. To you maybe it is. To me, it's not.

[Juror#8]

Can you provide a link to it please?

 

I believe I've explained my side to you as well. I don't mind dong it again, but evidently you do.

I'd like to hear more about your side; what I've read up until this point seems generic and incomplete.

 

I think Tasker asked the salient question: who fills that void, that vacuum, in the instance of the US extricating itself from global affairs?

 

As you've probably heard said, power, like nature, loathes a vacuum. Someone will need to step in and fill that space left by the only nation willing and capable enough to ensure that the world doesn't devolve into unmitigated global chaos.

 

What nation is strong enough, solvent enough, independent enough, transparent enough and perfectly geographically placed enough to occupy that space? China? Russia?

 

You refer to instances of global intervention that didn't bear fruit. Fair enough. However I see those instances as more a crises of logistical unpreparedness than the philosophy behind the action itself being wrong. And since you can't properly prove a negative who is to say what would have happened if we would not have intervened in Vietnam, or displaced Saddam?

 

Was the "sell" wrong and misguided? Sure. Were there logistical and strategic challenges of profound moment? Yup. But was the philosophy of action in those instances wrong? Were we able to repel a greater overall threat relative to the harm that we would have ultimately realized through inaction?

 

It could be argued that we did.

 

The danger of American inattentiveness, now, is likely a unstoppably large middle eastern hegemony and an Imperialist Russia that we can't trick into arms-building themselves into insolvency.

 

The next president, amongst other things, needs to understand the necessity of strategic interventionism. This is not the time for a ham-handed equivocator or a "dove." This is not the time for a Jimmy Carter or a Lyndon Johnson or a RON Paul. I, personally, and with respect to foreign policy only, think that Hillary will throw some punches and be the type of interventionist that we need.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Juror#8