2020 Election

War probably isn't necessary when you have the strongest traditional military and nukes. It dissuades and conventional state adversary.

So then the only foreign entities who will attack you are small paramilitary 'terrorists'. And as the past two decades have shown, it doesn't seem you can bomb away a violent ideology without bringing up an entire new generation devoted to the cause.

Obama was elected with a surge strategy in Afghanistan. This seemed to work temporarily, but he left Afghanistan in a power vacuum with people who didn't like us when he brought troop levels down. Which begat trumps troop surge.

Some problems you can't bomb your way out of.

 

I don't believe, nor do most people, that Obama tried to bomb his way into the presidency or out of the war.

Trump's strategy on foreign policy leaves much to be desired.

 

Some of the Dem candidates have been speaking reverently of love . But Grandpa Woodstock says to you - it's Peace and Love not
Love and Peace . Support your one most peaceful candy date .

 

This doesn't seem like an accurate summary of what I said.

I'm stating that objectively, Obama dropped more bombs than his predecessor, in seven countries, and only 2 of those countries we had declared war on.

My opinion, which I can correlate with data is that dropping bombs does not equate to less terrorism.

 

I agree. How many people give an honest answer to a poll question? I never have. It's really not any pollster's business what my opinion is.

 

Polls treat people like they're predictable. Which thing they definitely are not. Can't stand 'em.

 

As the saying goes:

Polls aren’t meant to survey political outcomes. They are meant to create and direct political outcomes.

 

Damn.

I agree with 6 on something

What is happening

 

^
I love it when the haters say that

 

Ok. I apologize.

So do you think that we were attacking people who weren't responsible for terrorist acts or activities relating to them? I believe wholeheartedly that Obama's intentions were genuine, that his heart and mind were in the right place, and that things were done by the book. If you're making accusations to the contrary, and I believe that you are, then we don't agree. I was sort of not paying attention to the news during his presidency, but would you say that we should have a war - like with a country - with the country that harbors the terrorist? Should we do nothing?

 

War is good only when Obama does it. Apparently.

 

this must be how i come across.

For the record: War is bad. Pulling the troops out when he did seemed very good to me. It felt like we were finally pulling out of the war. That is what I'm meaning to say. It felt like our troops were finally coming home! It was over! Not the case apparently. When is the war on terror ever over? I don't know. But attempting to characterize the Obama years as bad seems misguided. I think he was a bold and prominent leader.

 

I know people in North Africa who have a different opinion of this. As far as they are concerned the US meddling is the reason 12 different factions were fighting over Libya and Tunisia was filling up fast with "unofficial" refugees. A lot of stuff that happened there was kept from the media to the point that only outrageous rumors leaked out. By the time the truth started seeping through, nobody wanted to hear about it.

 

Are you being pedantic? Congress passed an authorization for military force in Iraq.

Afghanistan was a trickier matter. Congress did pass an authorization for use of military force in Afghanistan. It was against 'terrorism' however.

 

I admit I have relied on polling for years. Most of that faith was dissolved in 2016 when most of the polls were dreadfully wrong. It seemed as though the polls were being used to artificially verify Hillary's appeal while trying to make it seem like Trump only had a tiny following of toothless rednecks, nazis and klansmen. Where I think the whole thing went off the rails (and continues) is the emphasis on personal matters while virtually ignoring professional matters.

Really, how much discussion was had about Trump's actual accomplishments? Granted, his had little to do with governing and I personally thought that he'd try to run the country like a business, which it is NOT (or we'd be making a profit by now). I figured more Americans felt the same way by watching the polls. If the US was to be run like a corporation, we'd have a government run by a board of dictators. With the added benefit of "Right to work" laws and the virtual extinction of worker's rights or even a hint of a social contract, we'd all become serfs, fast.

Hillary's supporters in the press were criticized for asking softball questions that her hair dresser could easily answer. But why should she or any democrat take the risk of an embarrassing question? She was on a better path than Trump and she was certainly more experienced with Washington's slick operations. Trump is just a glorified salesman whose concept of laws revolves exclusively around money. However, this doesn't mean to suggest he couldn't get anything accomplished in Washington. It's a city built on deals. Though not always for money.

I don't trust modern polls as much as I trust weather forecasting. Some of them are ridiculously obvious while others seem like they only polled a dozen people, at a bingo parlor. It could be that as our US politics shifts into an almost deadlocked 50-50 electorate (what happened to conservative democrats?) that polls themselves are only reaping coin toss results. When our politics had a wider set of opinions, I think the polling gave us more data to work with.

Now all we have seems to be Caesar's thumb.

 

That's not the same thing as a war declaration.

 

I don't disagree with everything you've said, but I think you're conflating actual polling results with the media's interpretation of the polling results.

Polling aggregators 538 and RCP had around a 30% chance of Trump winning. If you listened to CNN it might have sounded like inevitable doom for Trump, but 3/1 are great odd's in Vegas.

Weather forecasting is a pretty great analogy. There are butterfly effects within politics which are difficult to statistically quantify.

One of those in 2016 was outsourcing and automation in the cultural zeitgeist. Clinton ignored it, while Trump spoke about it constantly. Almost exclusively on outsourcing and immigration specifically, but that did let him capture the real Trump swing voters.

The other, call it personality or Je Ne Se Quais... people just didn't like Clinton. I've listened to all sorts of news call it sexism which seems to be absurd. I never once heard an ounce of sincerity from Clinton. Before she said anything she let it pass through her inner observer, carefully measuring it before she said it. This is a useful skill to have in negotiations, but if you can't drop it and speak freely every now and then, you'll seem rigid and insincere. Trump is the opposite extreme.

 

Just keep in mind IF people hate anything about you, its your polarizing posts, pot stirring and your retarded (attempts at) logic, not you personally

 

I was going to say something like that too but figured I would just let it go this time lol

But yeah, I like 6 just fine. I just think his views are illogical and not thought out very well