Hillary or Bernie?

[Keirador]

Worth noting that Sanders is also a New York Jew, and Trump is a quintessential New Yorker, if not a member of the tribe. That New York accent seems to be attractive this campaign season.

[Keirador]

Rubio is also dramatically more frightening than people give him credit for. He looks like a moderate because he doesn't swear at people. (That's what the right has come to, by the way: not insulting other people to their faces is "moderate.") But he's actually running pretty far to the right of George W. Bush. No abortion whatsoever, no exceptions for incest or rape. A budget plan that's literally mathematically impossible: reduce taxes, increase net spending (all his social cuts are more than outweighed by his boosts to the military), and no new debt.

More importantly though, he's basically promising a bucketful of wars.

He's promised to put troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria. War #1
He wants to tear up the Iran nuclear deal, and simply dictate American will to Iran and assume they will cave due to a "credible threat of military force." War #2.
He's pledged to contain North Korea by "interdicting" ships and aircraft bound to North Korea. Pretty sure that when you "interdict" a country's military assets by engaging your own military assets you have started. . . War #3 (This Time it's Nuclear!)
He's offered "lethal military assistance" to the pro-Western Ukrainian government in Kiev. Depending on what exactly that means, that's already War #4, but he's also proposed including Ukraine in NATO, which would definitely be War #4, and combined with provocations he has suggested like an enlarged troop presence in non-Nato states that border Russia like Georgia, we could even see War #5 (The Cold War Turns HOT!)

Meanwhile to pay for his engorged military plus a few wars, he has promised to cut taxes and outlaw new debt, so. . . pretty sure we're gonna lose these wars.

BEST CASE SCENARIO, he's lying through his teeth and won't do anything he says he will.

[Guns of Brixton]

Rubio is also dramatically more frightening than people give him credit for. He looks like a moderate because he doesn't swear at people. (That's what the right has come to, by the way: not insulting other people to their faces is "moderate.") But he's actually running pretty far to the right of George W. Bush. No abortion whatsoever, no exceptions for incest or rape.

Actually this isn't true. According to pbs.org 's "What does Marco Rubio believe" he sponsored a bill that bans abortion after 20 weeks but that makes exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/marco-rubio-believe-candidate-stands-10-issues/

He is far to the right of me on social issues but let's not blatantly misrepresent his position. There's enough of that going around...

He's promised to put troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria. War #1

This actually makes a lot more sense than most other candidates' suggestions to 'carpet bomb the region' (Trump) or bury their head in the sand and let the refugee crisis get worse and worse (Obama). Troops on the ground don't necessarily mean war (nor does posturing against Iran - we can't rip up the agreement because we're talking about a UN agreement - the US sanctions that were imposed for human rights violations before the UN sanctions are still in effect with no plans for lifting so that would be a continuation of policy not a new war-starting one). But in any case the crisis in Syria needs serious engagement by the US and others as an alternative to seeing Assad and Putin bomb Libyan rebels and the locals who happen to be in the wrong place. The ability to stop atrocities carries a responsibility to do so.

[musashisamurai]

Hillary also supports boots on the ground, at least because that's what a no fly zone would involve.

Also, remember that Al Gore and Bush junior weren't too far different in 2000. Ever watch Rage Against The Machinr's music video for Testify?

(Since midterms are done I can actually reply back finally)

[Keirador]

Rubio is also dramatically more frightening than people give him credit for. He looks like a moderate because he doesn't swear at people. (That's what the right has come to, by the way: not insulting other people to their faces is "moderate.") But he's actually running pretty far to the right of George W. Bush. No abortion whatsoever, no exceptions for incest or rape.

Actually this isn't true. According to pbs.org 's "What does Marco Rubio believe" he sponsored a bill that bans abortion after 20 weeks but that makes exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/marco-rubio-believe-candidate-stands-10-issues/

He is far to the right of me on social issues but let's not blatantly misrepresent his position. There's enough of that going around...

Just because Rubio sponsored a bill doesn't mean Rubio supports what was in that bill. Just ask Rubio:

I'll support any legislation that reduces the number of abortions, so that means a 20-week abortion ban. At five months, a child -- you'll recognize it as a human being in an ultrasound image. And I'll support that. That doesn't obviously cover the whole gamut, but it reduces the number of abortions.
...
I'll support any legislation that reduces the number of abortions and there are those that have that exception in it. What I've never done is said I require that it must have or not have exceptions.

So Rubio will support anything that limits abortion, even if there are exceptions. How does he personally feel?

I personally believe you do not correct one tragedy with a second tragedy. That's how I personally feel very strongly about.
. . .
I believe all human life irrespective of the circumstances in which it came into being is worthy of the protection of our laws. I recognize this is a tough question. It's a very difficult question. And I understand that. Believe me, I do. But by the same token if I have to weigh the two equities here, I'm always going to err on the side of life.

I personally and deeply believe that all human life is worthy of the protection of our laws, I do. And I believe that irrespective of the conditions by which that life was conceived or anything else, and for me to be consistent on that belief, that's why I feel so strongly about it.

Taken together it's pretty clear: he'll support exceptions if it's all he can get to limit abortions, but he'd prefer no exceptions.

He's promised to put troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria. War #1

This actually makes a lot more sense than most other candidates' suggestions to 'carpet bomb the region' (Trump) or bury their head in the sand and let the refugee crisis get worse and worse (Obama). Troops on the ground don't necessarily mean war

So to some extent this is a fair observation. The left in America is absolutely paralyzed about stuff like this. We absolutely cannot allow humanitarian crises to continue, and we absolutely cannot engage in open-ended land wars, but sometimes the only way to stop the former is the latter, and the left has absolutely no response.

So troops on the ground is a coherent and understandable proposal. If that was the only war Marco Rubio wanted to fight, and if he proposed to pay for it somehow.

(nor does posturing against Iran - we can't rip up the agreement because we're talking about a UN agreement - the US sanctions that were imposed for human rights violations before the UN sanctions are still in effect with no plans for lifting so that would be a continuation of policy not a new war-starting one).

[/quote]
And the fact that Rubio thinks he can unilaterally tear up the agreement is troubling enough on its own. But abandoning the Iran agreement is only a part of the problem. He has also vowed that he will keep Iran in line with the "credible threat of military force." Unless the Ayatollah simply capitulates entirely, that means war. Or that Rubio is just lying, which is the best case scenario.

[Keirador]

Hillary also supports boots on the ground, at least because that's what a no fly zone would involve.

Also, remember that Al Gore and Bush junior weren't too far different in 2000. Ever watch Rage Against The Machinr's music video for Testify?

(Since midterms are done I can actually reply back finally)

As discussed above, putting troops on the ground in Syria is, for me, a lot less alarming when you're only proposing one new war, instead of 3 - 5.

[Guns of Brixton]

Rubio is also dramatically more frightening than people give him credit for. He looks like a moderate because he doesn't swear at people. (That's what the right has come to, by the way: not insulting other people to their faces is "moderate.") But he's actually running pretty far to the right of George W. Bush. No abortion whatsoever, no exceptions for incest or rape.

Actually this isn't true. According to pbs.org 's "What does Marco Rubio believe" he sponsored a bill that bans abortion after 20 weeks but that makes exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/marco-rubio-believe-candidate-stands-10-issues/

He is far to the right of me on social issues but let's not blatantly misrepresent his position. There's enough of that going around...

Just because Rubio sponsored a bill doesn't mean Rubio supports what was in that bill. Just ask Rubio:

I'll support any legislation that reduces the number of abortions, so that means a 20-week abortion ban. At five months, a child -- you'll recognize it as a human being in an ultrasound image. And I'll support that. That doesn't obviously cover the whole gamut, but it reduces the number of abortions.
...
I'll support any legislation that reduces the number of abortions and there are those that have that exception in it. What I've never done is said I require that it must have or not have exceptions.

So Rubio will support anything that limits abortion, even if there are exceptions. How does he personally feel?

I personally believe you do not correct one tragedy with a second tragedy. That's how I personally feel very strongly about.
. . .
I believe all human life irrespective of the circumstances in which it came into being is worthy of the protection of our laws. I recognize this is a tough question. It's a very difficult question. And I understand that. Believe me, I do. But by the same token if I have to weigh the two equities here, I'm always going to err on the side of life.

I personally and deeply believe that all human life is worthy of the protection of our laws, I do. And I believe that irrespective of the conditions by which that life was conceived or anything else, and for me to be consistent on that belief, that's why I feel so strongly about it.

Taken together it's pretty clear: he'll support exceptions if it's all he can get to limit abortions, but he'd prefer no exceptions.

The man believes in life at conception and that abortions are murder. I don't and I'm an atheist so I don't agree with him but given that he considers himself religious it's not an unreasonable position. He is not dogmatic in his beliefs enough to insist on no exceptions. You said he was scarily extreme and countenanced no exceptions - that he was to the right of GWB. That's simply not the case. You're quoting him talking to a pro-life group or certainly a devoutly religious audience I'm sure and he's defending to them why he's voted for bills that include exceptions. Again, it's reasonable of him to do so by using an argument that he will support any bill that limits abortions. It's something that's consistent with his own beliefs and something that his audience would respond to - why wouldn't he use that argument? But it seems to me that he is less 'hard core' Religious Right than Ted Cruz and many other Southern politicians. Maybe I'm wrong - I'm not immersed in it over here in GB - but it seems like he is better at seeking compromise.

(nor does posturing against Iran - we can't rip up the agreement because we're talking about a UN agreement - the US sanctions that were imposed for human rights violations before the UN sanctions are still in effect with no plans for lifting so that would be a continuation of policy not a new war-starting one).

And the fact that Rubio thinks he can unilaterally tear up the agreement is troubling enough on its own. But abandoning the Iran agreement is only a part of the problem. He has also vowed that he will keep Iran in line with the "credible threat of military force." Unless the Ayatollah simply capitulates entirely, that means war. Or that Rubio is just lying, which is the best case scenario.[/quote]

Tough on Syria, tough on Iran, tough on NK - are these really extreme positions? It's trying to establish geopolitical strength and seriousness - trying to counteract the impression that the US is disinterested in standing up against aggression in the world. I remember growing up and people were telling me that Reagan was going to start a nuclear war - that he was a madman and dangerous. But as it turned out he put the US in a position where it could negotiate arms control treaties with more bite than any of his predecessors and ultimately made the world a much safer place when he left office than when he entered. His slogan in the 1984 election was 'Peace through Strength'. It doesn't mean that you need to start Wars Nos 1 - 5 as you outline - it's designed to avoid the wars. I remember people telling me he was a war-monger because we invaded Grenada(!) They didn't understand the irony.

Oh, and can I ask to avoid using the words 'lying' and 'liar'? Watching the debates where everyone is calling each other liars is simply pathetic. It sounds like 10 year-olds and is about as deep and informative. The level of discourse here is of higher quality - you make interesting and valid points in your analysis. We don't need to sink to the level of politicians.

[Keirador]

The man believes in life at conception and that abortions are murder. I don't and I'm an atheist so I don't agree with him but given that he considers himself religious it's not an unreasonable position.

I agree with your sentiment here. I'm not typically very vocal on abortion, and I feel the mainstream discussion largely misses the point (that point, in my opinion, is who has human rights and under what circumstances can they be abrogated, and has little to do with either privacy or God), but I don't feel myself qualified to be an authority on the subject, and I find the pro-life position coherent. That doesn't mean it's not a hard-right opinion. Hard-right isn't necessarily the same thing as unjustified.

He is not dogmatic in his beliefs enough to insist on no exceptions. You said he was scarily extreme and countenanced no exceptions - that he was to the right of GWB. That's simply not the case.

He is to the right of GWB on this issue. Both oppose abortion. GWB explicitly believed in certain exemptions:

McCAIN [to Bush]: Do you believe in the exemption, in the case of abortion, for rape, incest, and life of the mother?
BUSH: Yeah, I do.

I just quoted you material in which Rubio said he would accept any bill that limits abortion even if it had exemptions, but he personally does not believe in exemptions. One man says he will swallow exemptions if he has to in order to pass anti-abortion legislation, the other man says he believes in those exemptions. Rubio has made it clear he would prefer legislation that had no such exemptions. He is therefore either to the right of GWB, or he is lying (I recognize you don't like the term, I will address this--for now, let me say "he is either to the right of GWB or he is saying something he knows to be untrue with the intent that his audience will believe that it is true).

You're quoting him talking to a pro-life group or certainly a devoutly religious audience I'm sure and he's defending to them why he's voted for bills that include exceptions. Again, it's reasonable of him to do so by using an argument that he will support any bill that limits abortions. It's something that's consistent with his own beliefs and something that his audience would respond to - why wouldn't he use that argument?

I have two objections here. First, in assuming he's talking to a pro-life group or "certainly" a devoutly religious audience, I'm not sure why you seem to be erring on the side of defending Rubio rather than understanding the context in which he makes his statements. The quotations I pulled were actually from interviews on CNN and Meet the Press, aka "the liberal mainstream media." He has said similar things on nationally-televised debates. These statements were meant for public consumption.

Second, if you're right, you're also describing what lying is, but objecting to calling it "lying." You're indicating that when he says he is personally opposed to exceptions, that that's not true, he does support exceptions, but to assuage his anti-exception audience, he has to tell them something about his personal opinion that isn't true, that he knows isn't true, but which he wants them to believe is true. That's. . . what lying is.

Now to be clear, lying isn't a disqualifier for me. I voted for John McCain in 2008 based on his long record of moderation, principle, pragmatism and problem-solving. That John McCain wasn't on display in 2008, it was some radical bullying wing-nut instead. In order to vote for him, I had to believe that most of what he said during his appalling 2008 primary campaign was a lie. I get how the game is played. But that doesn't mean I'm going to engage in a bunch of euphemisms when somebody says something they know not to be true with the intention of at least some people believing that it is true. That's lying. I wish it weren't so necessary in modern politics, and maybe if we could acknowledge lies as lies, instead of calling it "campaigning" or "messaging," candidates wouldn't be able to get away with so much lying.

But it seems to me that he is less 'hard core' Religious Right than Ted Cruz and many other Southern politicians. Maybe I'm wrong - I'm not immersed in it over here in GB - but it seems like he is better at seeking compromise.

Oh I never claimed he was to the right of Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz is about as far right as you can go. I claimed he was to the right of GWB, which he is, which shows you how incredibly far to the right the Republican party has lurched in the past decade. Do you recall what GWB actually did? He expanded Medicare and Medicaid, he attempted to create a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, he poured billions of dollars into education (No Child Left Behind) and billions of dollars into federal scientific research organizations like the NIH, and he spent billions to create and fund PEPFAR, an anti-AIDS initiative in Africa which has saved millions of lives. On these and many issues, GWB is far too liberal to be electable in a modern GOP primary. Could you imagine a current candidate saying "we're going to authorize billions in new federal spending and create federal guidelines to help and support local schools attain higher standards?" They'd be laughed out of the race. John Kasich gets criticized for accepting free money to expand health care in his state, no candidate could propose spending more federal dollars on health care.

Tough on Syria, tough on Iran, tough on NK - are these really extreme positions? It's trying to establish geopolitical strength and seriousness - trying to counteract the impression that the US is disinterested in standing up against aggression in the world. I remember growing up and people were telling me that Reagan was going to start a nuclear war - that he was a madman and dangerous. But as it turned out he put the US in a position where it could negotiate arms control treaties with more bite than any of his predecessors and ultimately made the world a much safer place when he left office than when he entered. His slogan in the 1984 election was 'Peace through Strength'. It doesn't mean that you need to start Wars Nos 1 - 5 as you outline - it's designed to avoid the wars. I remember people telling me he was a war-monger because we invaded Grenada(!) They didn't understand the irony.

Again, I think your entire position here is predicated on the idea that Rubio is lying, which is what I acknowledged was the best-case scenario. You would prefer me to use euphemisms for lying, like "tough talk" or "posturing," but if what you're saying is "Rubio is consciously saying words he doesn't actually mean," then we're in agreement. What he said was that he was going to disregard any diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear program and instead control Iranian domestic policy through the "credible threat of military force." That's on his campaign website as his strategy for dealing with Iran. What does that mean to you? Note the use of the word "credible." He's specifically saying it should be believed that he will actually use military force if he must. If he is serious about those words, it means that if Iran doesn't do as we say, he will meet diplomatic non-compliance with a violent attack by our military. I'm not sure in what way that isn't war.

Similarly, his plan for North Korea is that he will use the military to "interdict" air and sea traffic to North Korea, including North Korean military vessels. If he is telling the truth that that is what he will do as president, what does that mean, specifically?

If your solution here is that this is just "tough talk," meaning that even though he says he believes these things, in reality he does not believe them, then we merely disagree on semantics, though I'm curious how you avoid the conclusion that he's lying.

Your Reagan example isn't unappreciated, and points to an area where lying can be very useful for a politician. If you look at Soviet media and intelligence from the time, they believed that Reagan was a madman who would not flinch from nuclear war. Since that was a disastrous policy for all concerned, it shifted the onus to de-escalate tension to the Soviets, who acted responsibly and systematically gave ground to the perceived "madman," who didn't care about the consequences of his actions.

It's a valid game theoretical strategy. The North Koreans have been using it to extort aid and avoid military repercussions for their actions for decades: give us what we want, or we'll use our nukes and the consequences be damned, we're crazy so you'd better not mess around. But it's not without risk. Most disastrous would be two leaders adopting the exact same strategy of brinksmanship; both saying "YOU had better back down, because I WILL go nuclear and if you force me to, that's on you, not on me, because my threat is clear and credible." As Diplomacy players, we should recognize that as the basic formulation for how WWI started, and a great many wars besides.

There's also the danger for voters that we're not getting the leader we think we are. I believe Reagan was lying about how aggressive he was prepared to be, and would never actually have led us into nuclear war with the USSR. I believed the same about George W. Bush. I supported his hawkishness in the run-up to the war with Iraq because I thought he was being crazy like a fox, acting like a belligerent warmonger just to put Iraq into a tighter and tighter box; pushing them into accepting weapons inspectors, autonomy for Kurds, a no-fly zone, etc, knowing the whole time that in reality invading Iraq was not a serious policy proposal, just "tough talk." But I was wrong! He wasn't crazy like a fox, he was just crazy! He legitimately thought an unnecessary land war in the Middle East was a good idea.

So I've shifted my preferences somewhat. As a voter, I don't want to have to guess what my leaders really mean when they speak, I want to at least consider the idea that I should take them at face value. You seem content to excuse Mr. Rubio's irresponsible threats as "tough talk," I'm listening to the content of his proposals and noting that if we are to believe Mr. Rubio means what he says, he would lead us into several wars.

Oh, and can I ask to avoid using the words 'lying' and 'liar'? Watching the debates where everyone is calling each other liars is simply pathetic. It sounds like 10 year-olds and is about as deep and informative. The level of discourse here is of higher quality - you make interesting and valid points in your analysis. We don't need to sink to the level of politicians.

See I come to the opposite conclusion. It's sinking to the level of politicians when you recognize someone knowingly speaking a falsehood, and call it something other than a lie. That's really the crux of it: do you believe Mr. Rubio is knowingly speaking falsehoods, or might he actually mean what he says? I've been analyzing his policy proposals as if he is serious about them. We agree that the best case scenario is that he is knowingly speaking falsehoods, but I don't know why you wouldn't want to call that a lie. It's very important whether politicians are lying and specifically what they're lying about, as I think this conversation demonstrates. You don't think Mr. Rubio is all that extreme, specifically because you don't believe him when he speaks. I'm not sure whether to believe him or not, but take it as a worst-case scenario that he's telling the truth. It's pretty critical in evaluating his position whether he's telling the truth or not, but you seem to think it impolite to directly address whether he's lying. It's impolite to tell lies, it's not impolite to recognize them for what they are.

[ruffdove]

Hillary Clinton belongs in prison. That's where thousands of non-celebrity-first-lady-American civil servants with security clearances would be right now if they had put classified information on the open internet for their own convenience - especially under the current administration which has doggedly punished such people whether they were being careless or were whistle blowers.

I think Bernie Sanders is delusional, but I do get the sense that he is at least a good man without a shred of the arrogance that frightens me so much about Clinton. I also believe he will treat the Constitution with much more respect than it's been treated in the last 16 years. I doubt I'll vote for him, but I would by far prefer him to Clinton.

[Keirador]

Hillary Clinton belongs in prison. That's where thousands of non-celebrity-first-lady-American civil servants with security clearances would be right now if they had put classified information on the open internet for their own convenience - especially under the current administration which has doggedly punished such people whether they were being careless or were whistle blowers.

Well, one of the points Clinton supporters are making is that what Clinton did--[url]what she actually did[/url], not the wildly distorted summary you just gave--while unwise and a violation of at least the SPIRIT of government regulations, presented neither a security threat nor an actual crime, and the only reason this is a big deal is BECAUSE she's a celebrity First Lady.

I tend to concur here. The woman has enemies. If an actual specific security threat had emerged from the email hullabaloo, I'm pretty sure that that's all we would have been hearing about for the past year.