Your Hillary 2016 Survival Plan

[Tail Gunner]

She's not gonna run. Bill is to old and not in great condition.

I wish that were true. She will run. It has nothing to do with Bill.

If it were not for Hillary, I doubt that Bill would have run for Governor or been President.

Hillary is far more alpha that Bill.

And far more vicious.

 

[Hencredible Casanova]

Thank you or making my point, which was that your point was geo-politically irrelevant -- and, in fact, harmful to the nation.

I'm just stating the facts and citing support for them with the studies that I refer to. Your opinions are groundless and irrelevant to the fact that people in virtually every country in the world find Democratic Party presidents more popular. That was my point. I never mentioned anything about geopolitics (moving goal posts).

Sure, the fact that US Dem Presidents are more popular in virtually every country in the world - not only world powers - is harmful to the nation's security. However you rationalize reality is up to you armchair. Carter means F-D-R as well.

 

[It_is_my_time]

She's not gonna run. Bill is to old and not in great condition.

I wish that were true. She will run. It has nothing to do with Bill.

If it were not for Hillary, I doubt that Bill would have run for Governor or been President.

Hillary is far more alpha that Bill.

And far more vicious.

Exactly. She is the gas in Bill's engine. And let us not forget as first lady she tried to ram through severely anti-male social healthcare.

She will run, and I think she will win easily, and she will target the middle class men with the type of fury that will be frightening, especially after 8 years of Obama targeting middle class men.

 

[Dusty]

If Hillary gave Obama one of her balls, they'd both have two:

 

[Joga Bonito]

What's funny is that Romney's best showing in a poll of 22 countries was Kenya, the country of Obama's father.

Some relevant factors I know of are:

1. Obama spurning Kenya when he visited Africa a couple years ago and opting not to visit his Dad's village. I don't believe he has even been there during his presidency
2. The Kenyan government giving a big 'fuck you' to the ICC and voting to withdraw from the ICC when they attempted to try President Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto for crimes against humanity following the 2007 elections. Many African leaders actually have spoken out against the ICC as view it to be a tool of bigger nations like the US and Britain to exert control over geopolitical matters in the region. This caused a row between the Obama administration and the Kenyan gov't.
   There does seem to be a bias against African leaders, since they make up an overwhelming amount of their cases
3. His support for gay marriage

 

[Hencredible Casanova]

There does seem to be a bias against African leaders, since they make up an overwhelming amount of their cases

Definitely. One of my favorite moments about this topic was when CNN's Cristianne Amanpour interviewed Robert Mugabe and asked this question.

Amanpour: Mr. President, don't you think 89 years old would have been a great time to rest and retire?

Mugabe: Have you ever asked Queen Elizabeth this question or is it just for African leaders?

LOL.

It's all neo-colonialist bullshit. Mugabe was a hero of the west until he implemented that fast-track land reform to address lingering racial inequities from racist policies during the colonial era, returning the land back to black Zimbabweans. Ever since then they've been talking about "regime change."

I also don't get why any government gives a fuck about gay rights in African countries.

Do you see African countries refusing to cooperate with the US because of the 2 million+ babies killed every year due to abortion (which is illegal in most of the world)?

Of course not. People need to respect the sovereignty of other nations and work with them on an equal basis (i.e. China's model). So much hypocrisy in the petty little world of international relations. Repression in Saudi Arabia? No problem. They serve our narrow business interests. Ridiculous.

 

[Tail Gunner]

Thank you or making my point, which was that your point was geo-politically irrelevant -- and, in fact, harmful to the nation.

I'm just stating the facts and citing support for them with the studies that I refer to. Your opinions are groundless and irrelevant to the fact that people in virtually every country in the world find Democratic Party presidents more popular. That was my point. I never mentioned anything about geopolitics (moving goal posts).

I am sure that is true in your own mind. But that is not reality. Your own words, from your original post:

On the global stage, Democratic US Presidents are far more respected and embraced than Republican ones.

As I proved by example, most Democratic presidents are not respected internationally. Their weakness has historically caused aggression, weakness, and war.

So, I addressed your original claim about respect. In return, you have done nothing but call me names and obscure your original claim -- instead of supporting your original point with reasoned analysis. Such hamster activity is the surest sign of who lost the debate.

 

[Hencredible Casanova]

I am sure that is true in your own mind. But that is not reality. Your own words, from your original post:

On the global stage, Democratic US Presidents are far more respected and embraced than Republican ones.

As I proved by example, most Democratic presidents are not respected internationally. Their weakness has historically caused aggression, weakness, and war.

So, I addressed your original claim about respect.

Keep debating with yourself. There is no debate here since the facts I've demonstrated are above dispute. I guess you misunderstood what respect means, which is no surprise considering you addressed F-D-R as Carter and randomly addressed foreign policy when the post had nothing to do with that (talk about living in one's head).

I've actually cited links while you have not shown any support for your claims. Just nonstop babble with no support. Then moving goal posts as I dismantle each of your bogus allegations.

Perhaps you don't know what the term "respect" even means, but as the polls show, Democratic Presidents are infinitely more popular, liked and respected by the majority of people around the world. The empirical research has made that abundantly clear.

Keep not citing evidence that doesn't exist and enjoy the debate you're having with yourself.

Cheers.

 

[MidniteSpecial]

I bet you an 18 pack she doesn't run.

 

[speakeasy]

Of course not. People need to respect the sovereignty of other nations and work with them on an equal basis (i.e. China's model). So much hypocrisy in the petty little world of international relations. Repression in Saudi Arabia? No problem. They serve our narrow business interests. Ridiculous.

Some SWPLs on my FB wall were complaining about Russia having the Olympics in light of the gay laws there. Some going so far as to say we should boycott the Olympics. I had to remind them that the Gulf states have FAR worse laws regarding homosexual behavior but nobody ever talks about boycotting gasoline. So we need to stop the phoney outrage.

 

[speakeasy]

I don't buy into all the doom and gloom paranoia. Anyone that's seriously going to leave the country soley because Hillary wins needs their head examined. You guys sound worse than the liberals claiming they were all running off to Canada if Bush won(of course they never actually did). Like Obama, in all likelihood she will govern as a moderate Republican. When exactly was the the last time we had a truly left-wing president in office that actually governed as one?

Your local politics are far more important when it comes to the direct impact on your life. The only thing Obama has done that has had a direct and measurable impact on my life was lower my healthcare insurance by about $30 through the the healthcare.gov site.

 

[Tail Gunner]

I am sure that is true in your own mind. But that is not reality. Your own words, from your original post:

On the global stage, Democratic US Presidents are far more respected and embraced than Republican ones.

As I proved by example, most Democratic presidents are not respected internationally. Their weakness has historically caused aggression, weakness, and war.

So, I addressed your original claim about respect.

Keep debating with yourself. There is no debate here since the facts I've demonstrated are above dispute. I guess you misunderstood what respect means, which is no surprise considering you addressed F-D-R as Carter and randomly addressed foreign policy when the post had nothing to do with that (talk about living in one's head).

Your original post had nothing to do with "respect" in regard to foreign policy?

Presidents are more important for the macro domestic challenges and for international leadership. On the global stage, Democratic US Presidents are far more respected and embraced than Republican ones.

Having confirmed that you are a sociopath, I'll just move on.

 

[It_is_my_time]

I don't buy into all the doom and gloom paranoia. Anyone that's seriously going to leave the country soley because Hillary wins needs their head examined. You guys sound worse than the liberals claiming they were all running off to Canada if Bush won(of course they never actually did). Like Obama, in all likelihood she will govern as a moderate Republican. When exactly was the the last time we had a truly left-wing president in office that actually governed as one?

Your local politics are far more important when it comes to the direct impact on your life. The only thing Obama has done that has had a direct and measurable impact on my life was lower my healthcare insurance by about $30 through the the healthcare.gov site.

The Republicans are left of center as well. Obama, whether he has governed like a "Republican" or "Democrat" is not worth of debate. Both are leftists who attack middle class men. Obamacare is a HUGE shot at middle class men, stealing money from their pockets to give to women, wealthy insurance CEO's, and the elderly.

I plan to get out of the USA after the disaster Bush and Obama have left this country. As a man I am a 2nd class citizen here, and it is expensive with less and less opportunity. Hillary would not be a sole reason for me to leave, that has already been set. Hillary worries me into thinking I will be trapped here economically.

 

[greensteelhead]

Who gives a flying fuck about how other countries see us? As the lesbo that this thread is about says. "What does it matter anyway?" Besides, Tailgunner, you are projecting your own view on the rest of the world. Yes, your log-in shows you are a fellow 'Murican.

You are projecting a totally Beta view of how American foreign policy should be conducted. If we had an Alpha running the show and running foreign policy like they run game (i.e., Putin), this whole "far more respected" bullshit would be put to rest. We have not had an Alpha running foreign policy in a long, long time.

Stop the flow of foreign aid, stop the endless foreign wars, get us out of the Middle East entanglements and stop destroying our industrial base with stupid treaties. Is that so fucking hard?

Bill-ary ain't doing any of those things.

 

[Joga Bonito]

There does seem to be a bias against African leaders, since they make up an overwhelming amount of their cases

Definitely. One of my favorite moments about this topic was when CNN's Cristianne Amanpour interviewed Robert Mugabe and asked this question.

Amanpour: Mr. President, don't you think 89 years old would have been a great time to rest and retire?

Mugabe: Have you ever asked Queen Elizabeth this question or is it just for African leaders?

LOL.

It's all neo-colonialist bullshit. Mugabe was a hero of the west until he implemented that fast-track land reform to address lingering racial inequities from racist policies during the colonial era, returning the land back to black Zimbabweans. Ever since then they've been talking about "regime change."

Great points all around. I don't want derail this thread but also check out this article about the US admitting to using ILLEGAL sanctions on the Zimbabwean economy. Many wrongly attribute the the land distribution reform as an excuse to justify why Mugabe must go, but there is indeed more than meets the eye when discussing the Zim economy. Particularly, not allowing Zimbabwe to trade diamonds freely which happens to be one of their most important exports and a large chunk of their GDP. These sanctions also exist in several sectors of the Zim gov't and largely explain why that economy has struggled. As you probably noticed,these facts are never included in the typical narrative as it pertains to Mugabe. As a result, the average citizen has been completely devastated.

THE United States government has, for the first time, admitted that the illegal sanctions it imposed on Zimbabwe were hurting ordinary people and the economy.

Incoming US Ambassador to Zimbabwe Mr David Bruce Wharton made the admission yesterday at a media roundtable discussion in

Harare and pledged to work with authorities in Zimbabwe and the US to normalise relations.

The admission comes after the World Diamond Council said it was also engaging the US government and the European Union to lift sanctions they imposed on Marange diamonds, despite Zimbabwe having received the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme nod to export the gems.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201211170029.html

 

[MattW]

I don't buy into all the doom and gloom paranoia. Anyone that's seriously going to leave the country soley because Hillary wins needs their head examined. You guys sound worse than the liberals claiming they were all running off to Canada if Bush won(of course they never actually did). Like Obama, in all likelihood she will govern as a moderate Republican. When exactly was the the last time we had a truly left-wing president in office that actually governed as one?

Your local politics are far more important when it comes to the direct impact on your life. The only thing Obama has done that has had a direct and measurable impact on my life was lower my healthcare insurance by about $30 through the the healthcare.gov site.

Agreed on the doom and gloom in both Hillary Clinton's case and Janet Yellen's. And maybe we should go back to classifying politicians as federalists or democrat-republicans.

 

[Hencredible Casanova]

Your original post had nothing to do with "respect" in regard to foreign policy?

Presidents are more important for the macro domestic challenges and for international leadership. On the global stage, Democratic US Presidents are far more respected and embraced than Republican ones.

Having confirmed that you are a sociopath, I'll just move on.

That's fine by me. I don't know why you want to have a discussion anyway. You've already made your point. I can only make my points and cite a credible source to support them. You simply try to bombard someone with your opinion yet don't cite any support to make it persuasive.

Imagine if one day I'm having the same discussion with someone else and they rationally cite credible support for an opposing viewpoint. Am I'm supposed to say, you know, I had this same discussion in the past and some guy on the Roosh Forum named Tail Gunner said...(?)

If all you have is an opinion and the insistence that it's right, then just make your point once and let's agree to disagree. I don't find you on your own credible enough to go against world opinion verified by polling and my own experiences abroad.

But even in the foreign policy arena, I think most of the world's people (forget about pundits and elites) respect Democratic Party Presidents more than Republicans. Bill Clinton is arguably more popular abroad post-presidency than he was during president. He commands enormously high fees on the lecture circuit and is invited to all kinds of international organizations, think thanks, etc. He gets mobbed wherever he goes.

FDR was going to win a fourth consecutive election (the only
President to serve more than two terms). His leadership during WWII was legendary.

Every American President has had foreign policy blunders, and that alone could take easily take up another thread. Hell, GWB's presidency on its own could. Let's not go into that. Let's just agree to disagree.

As Nelson Mandela wisely said once, "Only armchair politicians are immune from committing mistakes. Errors are inherent in political action. Those who are in the centre of political struggle, who have to deal with practical and pressing problems, are afforded little time for reflection and no precedents to guide them and are bound to slip up many times."

For future reference, here's a flow chart to guide you on what constitutes a "rational" discussion. Cheers.

 

[Hencredible Casanova]

Who gives a flying fuck about how other countries see us? As the lesbo that this thread is about says. "What does it matter anyway?" Besides, Tailgunner, you are projecting your own view on the rest of the world. Yes, your log-in shows you are a fellow 'Murican.

You are projecting a totally Beta view of how American foreign policy should be conducted. If we had an Alpha running the show and running foreign policy like they run game (i.e., Putin), this whole "far more respected" bullshit would be put to rest. We have not had an Alpha running foreign policy in a long, long time.

Stop the flow of foreign aid, stop the endless foreign wars, get us out of the Middle East entanglements and stop destroying our industrial base with stupid treaties. Is that so fucking hard?

Bill-ary ain't doing any of those things.

Tail Gunner is right in that certain "allies" in geopolitically relevant regions are concerned about the US foreign policy shift. But where I disagree is that it means the US is somehow weak. I'd say it's becoming more shrewd in light of changing dynamics post 9/11.
This short video does a better job than I ever could in explaining those developments.



As the world's only superpower left, the US has to always maintain a "geopolitical balance" in critical regions in order to prevent a regional hegemony from expanding its power and eventually rivaling the US.

Wrt China, the US doesn't need to do much except to support its adversaries. China has enough rivaling states in its neighborhood to keep it in check (Japan, India, Russia, even Vietnam).

In the Middle East, Bush's decision to go into Iraq inadvertently ended up strengthening Iran (a Shia Muslim country), by replacing a Sunni-led government with a Shia-led government sympathetic to Tehran. Even Iraq's first postwar President spent his formative years living in Iran in exile from Sadaam Hussein's rule.

Iran now has increased political and economic influence in Iraq as well as unfettered access from the Gulf to the Mediterranean through an Iran - Iraq - Syria (Al-Assad) - Lebanon (Hezbollah) axis, all Shia-dominated actors. It's even strengthening its influence in Bahrain (a Shia majority country ruled by a Sunni monarchy that is now in intense negotiations with an emboldened Shia opposition). This is undoubtedly concerning the Saudis (the home of Sunni Islam) who are the arch-nemesis of the Iranian leadership. They are not too pleased to see Obama's government opening up to Iran, but fuck them. Iran has surpassed Saudi Arabia in importance with respect to the new geopolitical chessboard.





Also, while Bush got the US knee-deep in the Middle East, a resurgent Russia led by Putin decided to expand Russia's influence in the former Soviet states, and he has succeeded. He even managed to get some diplomatic points in the Syria crisis. Here's another video that explains this well.



The US has no choice but to be involved in the affairs of other countries to some degree. However, the geopolitical chessboard is always changing and today's allies can quickly become tomorrow's enemies.

 

[cool]

Who is ready for three years of news stories about why the US is finally ready for it's first woman president?

The media is going to blanket the country in this propaganda.

 

[Tex Pro]