3 ms·

>is this worse than Hillary dramatically increasing weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and Qatar Your premise is bogus. There's no reason to think Hillary Clinton i

>is this worse than Hillary dramatically increasing weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and Qatar Your premise is bogus. There's no reason to think Hillary Clinton is personally responsible for an increase in weapons sales, especially considering that such sales increased across the board under Obama. >Hillary voting to invade Iraq Her own floor speech before her vote said she was voting yes precisely to give Bush leverage to reinstitute inspections, not as a blank check to war. The point is that geopolitics is complicated, and judging it in the same way as judging someone's private behavior is plainly absurd.

Alex3917 10y ago
> There's no reason to think Hillary Clinton is personally responsible for an increase in weapons sales, especially considering that such sales increased across the board under Obama. "In late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At press conferences in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been 'a top priority' for Clinton personally." http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187 http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons... > The point is that geopolitics is complicated, and judging it in the same way as judging someone's private behavior is plainly absurd. Absolutely, but as a society I'm not comfortable with just writing off a million deaths under the guise of "it's complicated." In my personal opinion, making the comparison and deciding that Hillary is less bad is completely reasonable, but not making the comparison at all is what's absurd.
- wehadfun 10y ago
  Lets just say Clinton did not push for the sales of the weapons. You thing Saudi Arabia would say oh well and make peace with the people they are bombing? They would find some other way to kill them. This may have been a "choose your pit of snakes" situation. Either sell them some weapons or let them by develop or acquire gas/nuclear/bio weapons,
- thedifference33 10y ago
  Your beef seems to be with the media and how it is framing the issues in the election. Yet your arguments sound more directed at the average Joe. You seem to have assumed, based only on headline news, no one else is making the comparison. This is a pretty self-aggrandizing position to take.
- hackinthebochs 10y ago
  Your quote doesn't really address the point I'm making. Sure, as head of the state dept she would be involved with very large deals between our "allies" and U.S. corporations. The question is who is responsible for the supposed growth in sales that occurred, and can this growth be traced to her doing or her urging? It's also worth noting that the article says Saudi Arabia donated tens of millions in the years before she became Sec of State. So claiming the money was for a quid-pro-quo is a stretch. The fact is, any nation friendly to the U.S. probably has had a substantial donation to the Clinton Foundation in recent memory.
ZenoArrow 10y ago
> "Your premise is bogus. There's no reason to think Hillary Clinton is personally responsible for an increase in weapons sales, especially considering that such sales increased across the board under Obama." Was that during the period when Hilary Clinton was Secretary of State or in the period when John Kerry had that role? In any case, the sad part is people having to defend one of two subpar candidates in this election to justify their position. Aside from a minor miracle where a third party candidate steals the race, we're going to be stuck with a shitty US president for the next 4 years. Can we at least try to come to terms with that before it happens?
- hackinthebochs 10y ago
  I disagree that Clinton is shitty. She certainly represents "politics as usual", and that is the current bogeyman of the hour. But ultimately she's an effective politician with reasonable positions. Sure, there were likely better choices (not really counting Bernie here), but the two major parties cast big tents and so the candidates they bring represent that which is palatable to the largest amount of people. A large number of people will necessarily have a bad taste in their mouth.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    Two questions: 1. You stated that Hilary Clinton is "an effective politician with reasonable positions". Which of Hilary Clinton's positions do you like? 2. Which part(s) of Bernie's platform do you think held back his chances of winning the nomination/election?
    - hackinthebochs 10y ago
      It would be easier to list her positions I don't like. Off the top of my head only the Patriot act and Snowden come to mind. Keep in mind that I'm fiercely pragmatic, and so things that I would like to happen in a perfect world I don't hold as a political position because of how unlikely it is to happen. As far as Bernie goes, some of his stated positions seemed to be a little too disconnected from reality. Like his medicare for all plan and his free college plan weren't concrete enough to be taken seriously by the public at large.

Alex3917 10y ago

> There's no reason to think Hillary Clinton is personally responsible for an increase in weapons sales, especially considering that such sales increased across the board under Obama. "In late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At press conferences in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been 'a top priority' for Clinton personally." http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187 http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons... > The point is that geopolitics is complicated, and judging it in the same way as judging someone's private behavior is plainly absurd. Absolutely, but as a society I'm not comfortable with just writing off a million deaths under the guise of "it's complicated." In my personal opinion, making the comparison and deciding that Hillary is less bad is completely reasonable, but not making the comparison at all is what's absurd.

wehadfun 10y ago
Lets just say Clinton did not push for the sales of the weapons. You thing Saudi Arabia would say oh well and make peace with the people they are bombing? They would find some other way to kill them. This may have been a "choose your pit of snakes" situation. Either sell them some weapons or let them by develop or acquire gas/nuclear/bio weapons,
thedifference33 10y ago
Your beef seems to be with the media and how it is framing the issues in the election. Yet your arguments sound more directed at the average Joe. You seem to have assumed, based only on headline news, no one else is making the comparison. This is a pretty self-aggrandizing position to take.
hackinthebochs 10y ago
Your quote doesn't really address the point I'm making. Sure, as head of the state dept she would be involved with very large deals between our "allies" and U.S. corporations. The question is who is responsible for the supposed growth in sales that occurred, and can this growth be traced to her doing or her urging? It's also worth noting that the article says Saudi Arabia donated tens of millions in the years before she became Sec of State. So claiming the money was for a quid-pro-quo is a stretch. The fact is, any nation friendly to the U.S. probably has had a substantial donation to the Clinton Foundation in recent memory.

ZenoArrow 10y ago

> "Your premise is bogus. There's no reason to think Hillary Clinton is personally responsible for an increase in weapons sales, especially considering that such sales increased across the board under Obama." Was that during the period when Hilary Clinton was Secretary of State or in the period when John Kerry had that role? In any case, the sad part is people having to defend one of two subpar candidates in this election to justify their position. Aside from a minor miracle where a third party candidate steals the race, we're going to be stuck with a shitty US president for the next 4 years. Can we at least try to come to terms with that before it happens?

hackinthebochs 10y ago
I disagree that Clinton is shitty. She certainly represents "politics as usual", and that is the current bogeyman of the hour. But ultimately she's an effective politician with reasonable positions. Sure, there were likely better choices (not really counting Bernie here), but the two major parties cast big tents and so the candidates they bring represent that which is palatable to the largest amount of people. A large number of people will necessarily have a bad taste in their mouth.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  Two questions: 1. You stated that Hilary Clinton is "an effective politician with reasonable positions". Which of Hilary Clinton's positions do you like? 2. Which part(s) of Bernie's platform do you think held back his chances of winning the nomination/election?
  - hackinthebochs 10y ago
    It would be easier to list her positions I don't like. Off the top of my head only the Patriot act and Snowden come to mind. Keep in mind that I'm fiercely pragmatic, and so things that I would like to happen in a perfect world I don't hold as a political position because of how unlikely it is to happen. As far as Bernie goes, some of his stated positions seemed to be a little too disconnected from reality. Like his medicare for all plan and his free college plan weren't concrete enough to be taken seriously by the public at large.