« Sanders delegate's video of DNC "shaping" the audience last night | Main | Syria - 30 July 2016 »

29 July 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I have to remind myself of this reality every time it looks like Trump might actually win. Alas, indeed. What is even worse about this election is that many of my acquaintances (mostly liberal democrats) have changed from being uninterested in FP to actively spouting hatred against the Russians. What this means is that a president Hillary will have a ready made pro war mob behind her if she is foolish enough to think she can intimidate the Russians. Unfortunately Trump, by advocating negotiations not threats as the best way to deal with Russia, has turned the Democratic Party into the more rabid war party.

FB Ali

Why this roundabout way of boosting Hillary at Trump's expense?

Why not come straight out and say, "Vote for Hillary"?

In my opinion, using SST for such (insidious) electioneering is a misuse of the privilege accorded to the poster!


While US citizens may know little, and care less, about US FP it is the only thing the other 95% of the planets population see or care about. US FP is America - unless you are an American - and is all we see and how we judge you.

Trey N

Oh, so Hillary is going to "deliver on domestic issues" -- like she did her Charlie Foxtrot of an insurance program in hubby Bill's first administration? Or like Obama did with his promised "shovel-ready construction projects" and his Obamacare insurance fiasco? If Obama has indeed anointed her to continue his FUBAR legacy, then that's all the more reason to vote against her!

And FIY: Trump is an entrepreneur who has demonstrated his ability to build businesses, organize projects and provide jobs for people -- while Hillary is just another damn crooked lawyer/politician (the lowest life form on earth, below colon bacteria) who has never accomplished one damn thing in her life except to enrich herself and inflict misery on countless millions of people (the destruction of Libya being her crowning achievement in that regard).

Go ahead, Margaret, name one worthwhile thing -- anything at all -- that Hillary Rotten Clinton has done for the good people of this country or the world in her.entire.miserable.lifetime.

Go ahead and take your time. I know this is a really tough challenge....


Margaret I think if Donald gets elected he will find out that he has some 200,000 new friends he never knew he had before very willing to show him the ropes. Then again he can't do much worse than Obama.


I think this article can serve as a reply to your argument:


You are correct that many Americans will not be choosing Trump over Clinton because of foreign affairs. They will because, in Clintons' America, they are increasingly becoming an invisible people. We are entering an age where the Invisible Man and A Dream Deferred are becoming post racial literature. It is not that Trump has a shred of honesty, but he is at least levelheaded enough to recognize that problems, very serious problems, exist for millions of Americans. Getting even a halfhearted recognition of this out of the Clinton campaign and its spokespeople has been tortuous enough. Whatever promise they may offer, there is no reason for them to be trusted by anyone who is actually distressed.


OK, if your theory is correct and it all comes down to domestic community benefits, then explain why US military spending is so high?

You would expect politicians to have gradually eroded away the military budget to redirect that into other goodies they can hand out to voters. This has happened in other countries, but not in the USA.

I'm not specifically singling out either Trump or Hillary with this comment, just asking the question in the light of a long line of modern Presidents from both parties.

Balint Somkuti

Ah yes. And these fp negligent voters per tens of millions have been living a life of luxury in the last eight years with even better rxpectation about what is to cam haven't they?


I have to echo Brigadier Ali - this post, I hope unintentionally, reads like thinly disguised electioneering.

As to this: "The anti-Clinton theme on that thread may reflect real knowledge of her politics and policies"

I strongly suspect on the basis of the evidence that the Colonel's readers and posters both "foreign and domestic" tend be better-informed than most. I further suspect that those guests are well aware of the maxim that all politics is local.

Which leads me to JJackson's comment - those of us who aren't American see, and are affected by, that country's foreign policy. By affecting and altering the international political environment American foreign policy by definition affects our local politics. In Clinton's case her actions and policies have directly and unfavourably international political environment not only for America but for everyone else. By her actions she's shown herself repeatedly to be a war monger who is far more likely to provoke a war with Russia than her opponent. As one of those who would have to fight in such a war I judge accordingly.


It seems from my New Zealand perspective (having watched a few of Trump's speeches) that he has linked foreign policy to domestic issues along the lines of direct interest (as opposed to neocon/liberal interventionist democracy messianism). So while Americans may know or care about locating Estonia on a map, many on the left and right are concluding foreign wars and posturing are no good for anyone.

Also, it seems to me the issue is not 'how' (after all, what are technocrats for but figuring out method) so much as it is all about political will. Aristotle noted competency was entangled with the ends to which one directed it. Collapse that distinction and you collapse the basic rationale for democracy.


Not really true.



"Giuliani was asked whether a video Democrats used to portray her response to the attacks was accurate, according to the newspaper. Giuliani credited Clinton on a job well done.

"It was an accurate portrayal," Giuliani said, according to the newspaper.

"Hillary Clinton, like Senator Schumer, like the entire Senate and House of Representatives, like every Republican and Democrat that I know, was enormously helpful. She and Senator Schumer and [now] Senator Gillibrand and Representative Peter King were probably some of the most helpful in getting aid for the families of 9/11 victims," he said.

"For that, I would give her credit. I would also say she should share that credit with Senator Schumer, Senator Gillibrand, Pete King, me, Mayor Bloomberg, and others people who were part of it. But she was part of it and she has a right to tell people that she worked hard on behalf of the 9/11 families. She did."


"(the lowest life form on earth, below colon bacteria)"

Trey, I consider them quite helpful, as long as they are part of the more helpful type. In other words they are more useful then useless, if you ask me. Which of course you don't. ;)


Mark Gaughan

"Trump is an entrepreneur who has demonstrated his ability to build businesses, organize projects and provide jobs for people..."
Trump is a fraud.

Mark Gaughan

You make like her accomplishments, or not, but here are some of them: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04/13/heres-a-list-of-hillary-clintons-accomplishments-so-quit-saying-she-doesnt-have-any/


As the old saying goes: "war is god's way of teaching americans geography."


"He was a good provider."

actual words of the wife of some guy who buried his victims bodies in the woods behind their upscale suburban home. it was her response when people asked her why she didn't ever wonder about his periodic disappearances followed by intensive silviculture projects.

can't remember the name - only the quote was memorable.


It is just a continuation of Ms Steinfels innuendo in the Post Convention Thread, "fur'ners, you'll be sorry if Donald Trump wins." without any substantive argument.


the good provider rationale only goes so far.


It's not Trump who has "turned the Democratic Party into the more rabid war party", of course, but the Clinton team, in its pursuit of ways to attack Trump and to divert attention from their own problems.

Of course, given the latest affirmation of the Clinton camp's intention to renew the regime change attempt in Syria that has been largely responsible for the scale, scope and intractability of the war there, it's not hard to recognise the Democrats as the party of war anyway.

r whitman

There are going to be a very large number of "voting booth conversions" by Republican and conservative women. When they are faced with the choice of DT or the first woman president, they will choose HRC just on the basis of sex. It wont show up in the polls before the election.


Who will do more irreversible harm: Harold Hill (think 76 Trombones) or The Maenads?

Paul Escobar

Ms. Steinfels,

I have followed Mr. Trump closely. He consistently slips in surprising & necessary domestic policy proposals. And I'm not talking about the big shiny objects (re-negotiate trade deals & build the wall).

He does this quietly & artfully. If you have an eye for it, some familiarity with the different schools of policy thought, and do not suffer from hostility...you discover a man who is quite innovative & non-discriminatory. His "dog whistle" is more complex than "analysts" give him credit for.

Much is made of his "chaotic" campaign. But I see a method & purpose to much of it.

I will go off on a tangent here...it shocked me when I first noticed this...but he actually telegraphs his reportedly "undisciplined" shifts to "presidential" & "offensive" weeks/days ahead.

Returning to domestic policy. I view his campaign as the preliminary work required to ensure he can "deliver". Listen to the man. He says explicitly: "this is a movement". He is building something of great weight, dedication, & intensity. Entrenched obstacles can be moved by such things. And as my mind expands the timeline, I see many with hubris now...made humble by certain events.

I suspect that his competitive performance in the polls (despite violating countless norms) is evidence that a significant portion of the electorate understands what is occurring here...on some subliminal or emotional level. Not enough? I would agree Mrs. Steinfels.

But where I disagree with you is...I believe Mr. Trump sees quite clearly. And "the fog" is entirely one of his own making...directed where he sees fit. So it will be lifted, where and when necessary. It may even be intensified, to thwart adversaries.

Enjoy the show,

Richard Sale

I firmly agree.

Richard Sale

Richard Sale

It goes nowhere. I cannot think of a more inane excuse.

Richard Sale

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad