2016 Election Thread Part Deux

[n_huffhines]

That was a little over 200 years ago. Things have changed.

Should we cut all ties with all allies?

That's not what he was saying. Bad deals are bad deals, whether it's 1796 or 2016. We get nothing out of the relationship, except constant headaches.

 

[hog88]

Is your belief here at all tied to your particular religiosity?

You didn't ask me but in my case it is not.

 

[malinoisvol]

Is your belief here at all tied to your particular religiosity?

No sir.

 

[malinoisvol]

That's not what he was saying. Bad deals are bad deals, whether it's 1796 or 2016. We get nothing out of the relationship, except constant headaches.

That question was for you, not GJ.

I used to be an isolationist, also, then I grew up and realized that you need constant partners/friends.

I do believe that we could cut back on foreign aid across the board, but, to totally cut out an Israel (Japan, Korea, Germany, etc...) would be ludicrous, imo.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I agree with most of Gary Johnsons beliefs, however, this particular point makes me smh.

Gary Johnson on the Issues

One of things I disagree with Gary on.

I think our Iron Dome collaboration and some of our cyberspace collaborations with Isreal make sense.

 

[n_huffhines]

That question was for you, not GJ.

I used to be an isolationist, also, then I grew up and realized that you need constant partners/friends.

I do believe that we could cut back on foreign aid across the board, but, to totally cut out an Israel (Japan, Korea, Germany, etc...) would be ludicrous, imo.

What?

isolationism =/= non-interventionism
isolationism =/= avoiding entangling alliances

You can have friends and partners and avoid entangling alliances. I want to be partners with everybody. Can't we have something in between isolationism and busybody foreign policy?

 

[hog88]

What?

isolationism =/= non-interventionism
isolationism =/= avoiding entangling alliances

You can have friends and partners and avoid entangling alliances. I want to be partners with everybody. Can't we have something in between isolationism and busybody foreign policy?

You can't be friends with everybody. Eventually you have to choose sides.

 

[malinoisvol]

What?

isolationism =/= non-interventionism
isolationism =/= avoiding entangling alliances

You can have friends and partners and avoid entangling alliances. I want to be partners with everybody. Can't we have something in between isolationism and busybody foreign policy?

Yes, imo. However, not cut them off completely, as GJ stated.

 

[n_huffhines]

You can't be friends with everybody. Eventually you have to choose sides.

I realize that. I said that we can be (trading) partners with everyone. We probably won't ever be "friendly" with everyone.

 

[malinoisvol]

You can't be friends with everybody. Eventually you have to choose sides.

Absolutely! "Gotta stand for something or you'll fall for anything." (Song Quote)

 

[hog88]

Yes, imo. However, not cut them off completely, as GJ stated.

Any candidate proposing a complete cut in ties and aid doesn't have the FP chops to be POTUS.

 

[n_huffhines]

Yes, imo. However, not cut them off completely, as GJ stated.

Cutting foreign aid isn't cutting them off completely. It's just saying, "You guys don't need this welfare crutch anymore. Let's keep trading and sharing intelligence."

 

[hog88]

I realize that. I said that we can be (trading) partners with everyone. We probably won't ever be "friendly" with everyone.

Nope, we cannot be trading partners with everyone.

 

[n_huffhines]

Nope, we cannot be trading partners with everyone.

Yes we can. Why can't we?

 

[hog88]

Yes we can. Why can't we?

Say Germany up and invades France again, you still trading with them? Say ISIS manages to hold it's territory, you could almost call them a country now, you going to trade with them?

 

[n_huffhines]

Say Germany up and invades France again, you still trading with them? Say ISIS manages to hold it's territory, you could almost call them a country now, you going to trade with them?

Germany lashed out because of the sanctions. It was the cause of WWII. You picked the worst possible example to state your case. Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor because we wouldn't trade with them and they were desperate.

I am not saying we have to trade guns, but IDK why we can't send cars to Germany. It doesn't do anything for their war efforts and it makes us less of a target. It's the smart play.

Can you give me a real world example of why we shouldn't be trading with specific countries right now?

 

[hog88]

Germany lashed out because of the sanctions. It was the cause of WWII. You picked the worst possible example to state your case. Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor because we wouldn't trade with them and they were desperate.

I am not saying we have to trade guns, but IDK why we can't send cars to Germany. It doesn't do anything for their war efforts and it makes us less of a target. It's the smart play.

Can you give me a real world example of why we shouldn't be trading with specific countries right now?

Your naivete knows no bounds does it?

 

[n_huffhines]

Can you give me a real world example of why we shouldn't be trading with specific countries right now?

bump

 

[hog88]

bump

We shouldn't be trading with Iran because their government supports terrorism.

We shouldn't be trading with Saudi Arabia because members of the royal family contributes to terrorist.

We shouldn't trade with North Korea due to the constant threat to our ally(s).

Shall I continue?

 

[n_huffhines]

We shouldn't be trading with Iran because their government supports terrorism.

We shouldn't be trading with Saudi Arabia because members of the royal family contributes to terrorist.

We shouldn't trade with North Korea due to the constant threat to our ally(s).

Shall I continue?

It's weird how we have had sanctions on NK since the 1950s and they are still a constant threat. Maybe it's about time we changed up strategies?

Decades of sanctions against Iran really fixed that issue, huh?

 

[hog88]

It's weird how we have had sanctions on NK since the 1950s and they are still a constant threat. Maybe it's about time we changed up strategies?

Decades of sanctions against Iran really fixed that issue, huh?

It would have if we would have supported the student rebellion a few years ago.

 

[malinoisvol]

It's weird how we have had sanctions on NK since the 1950s and they are still a constant threat. Maybe it's about time we changed up strategies?

Decades of sanctions against Iran really fixed that issue, huh?

The extortion money we've been paying them for at least the past two decades have only emboldened them.

 

[n_huffhines]

The extortion money we've been paying them for at least the past two decades have only emboldened them.

I'm not calling for extortion money. The sanctions emolden their corrupt government. Sanctions do nothing to threaten their power, it just keeps their people down and poor. If we want to change North Korea, let's improve their economy. Let's open up relations and help educate them. Etc. That's how you beat an oppressive regime without it costing you an arm and a leg.

 

[Grand Vol]

I'm not calling for extortion money. The sanctions emolden their corrupt government. Sanctions do nothing to threaten their power, it just keeps their people down and poor. If we want to change North Korea, let's improve their economy. Let's open up relations and help educate them. Etc. That's how you beat an oppressive regime without it costing you an arm and a leg.

Good grief, Hog is right, your naivete is limitless.

 

[n_huffhines]

Good grief, Hog is right, your naivete is limitless.

Usually you yield to me on economics. Why do you think we should continue these sanctions that have done nothing to change power in NK?