It's a true measure of what a dismal campaign it has been on both sides, that so little has been discussed about foreign policy, and so little is known about where they stand and what they have done. But then I gather Hillary made the call to focus on Trump's personality, rather than the political issues.Originally Posted by World's End Stella
The points about Trump's policies on Russia and Saudi Arabia could be found, amongst other places, on the BBC website yesterday.
Last edited by Ash; 11-10-2016 at 02:42 PM.
Given that, in your own words, "voting for Trump may well be insane", discussion about the relative merits of both candidates' foreign policies seems rather besides the point.
The reason many intelligent people held their noses and voted for Clinton is because they, very understandably, felt that it was the least worst option when the only other choice would be "insane"
Where would your vote have gone, by the way?
For me, foreign policy is never beside the point. Wars kill, and a poppy is for life, not just for November.
The problem with Trump is that you don't know what you're going to get. The problem with Clinton is that you do know what you're going to get. I would have voted for neither.
Trump on ISIS: we should 'take their oil' and we should 'bomb the **** out of them'.
I'm struggling to reconcile these statements with your view of his foreign policy, if I'm honest, Ash.
Domestic policy kills too - welfare policy, for example. But we are more sentient to deaths caused by war because we see the consequences on the news every night. That doesn't necessarily make it rational.
Obama is considered to the left of Clinton, foreign policyistically, but he loves killing brown people with drones. Clinton takes money from the Saudis, we sell arms to them. That's just politics, surely.
But you are wrong in one sense to paint Trump as an unknown quantity, as if he' some kind of enigmatic maverick figure. But this isn't why we don't know what he'll do. The reason we don't know what he'll do is because his stupidity is unprecedented for someone in high office. And that was enough to convince many people to vote for the other candidate.
What would have stopped you choosing between two terrible options? Principle? Surely you just choose the least worst one?
Last edited by Monty92; 11-10-2016 at 03:12 PM.
But how do you choose the least worst one when the choice seems to be being poked in the eye with a fork, or stabbed in the leg with a rusty knife.
One seems a loose cannon (on the face of it), the other seems corrupt and in it for her rather than the country
Northern Monkey ... who can't upload a bleeding Avatar
Perhaps organisations such as Isis will no longer exist with Trump in charge. Not because he is going to wipe them out.
But maybe they will stop being funded/created.
I thought his foreign policy was whatever Putin tells him it is?
I think Ash is offended by the calculated nature of Clinton's evil foreign policy decisions. He doesn't take Trump seriously because his pronouncements are full of machismo and it's very easy to almost laugh them off.
Except now he has to take him seriously.
If the calculation is between two people who might **** up the world (or continue ****ing up the world, in Clinton's case), and after reasoned analysis you decide that one of the two people is likely to **** up the world in a lesser way than the other, then it seems reasonable to vote for the one that you believe is likely to do the less damage.
This decision does not have to be made - CANNOT be made - with absolute certainty. But then that applies to most decisions in life.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote